1 s2.0 S0963996913000732 Main

Food Research International 51 (2013) 823835
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Food Research International

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodres
Review
Texture measurement approaches in fresh and processed foods A review

Lan Chen a, b, Umezuruike Linus Opara b,
a b
School of Medical Instrument and Food Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai 200093, China Postharvest Technology Research Laboratory, South African Research Chair in Postharvest Technology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7602, South Africa
a r t i c l e
i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Knowledge of textural properties is important for stakeholders in the food value chain including producers, postharvest handlers, processors, marketers and consumers. For fresh foods such as fruit and vegetable, textural properties such as rmness are widely used as indices of readiness to harvest (maturity) to meet requirements for long term handling, storage and acceptability by the consumer. For processed foods, understanding texture properties is important for the control of processing operations such as heating, frying and drying to attain desired quality attributes of the end product. Texture measurement is therefore one of the most common techniques and procedures in food and postharvest research and industrial practice. Various approaches have been used to evaluate the sensory attributes of texture in foods. However, the high cost and time consumption of organizing panelists and preparing food limit their use, and often, sensory texture evaluation is applied in combination with instrumental measurement. Objective tests using a wide range of instruments are the most widely adopted approaches to texture measurement. Texture measurement instruments range from simple hand-held devices to the Instron machine and texture analyzer which provide time-series data of product deformation thereby allowing a wide range of texture attributes to be calculated from forcetime or forcedisplacement data. In recent times, the application of novel and emerging non-invasive technologies such as near-infrared spectroscopy and hyper-spectral imaging to measure texture attributes has increased in both fresh and processed foods. Increasing demand for rapid, cost-effective and non-invasive measurement of texture remains a challenge in the food industry. The relationships between sensory evaluation and instrumental measurement of food texture are also discussed, which shows the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration in this eld. 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Article history: Received 8 November 2012 Accepted 22 January 2013 Keywords: Food texture Non-destructive measurement Sensory evaluation Texture prole analysis Food quality
Contents 1. 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sensory evaluation of texture an overview . . . . . . . 2.1. Use of sensory panels in food texture measurement . 2.2. Sensory scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Limitations of sensory perception . . . . . . . . . Instrumental measurement of food texture . . . . . . . . 3.1. Destructive methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1. Three-point bending test . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2. Single-edge notched bend (SENB) test . . . 3.1.3. Compression and puncture test . . . . . . 3.1.4. Stress relaxation test . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.5. WarnerBratzler shear force (WBSF) test . 3.1.6. Tests using a combination of mechanical and 3.1.7. Imitative methods . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.8. Other destructive methods . . . . . . . . 3.2. Non-destructive methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1. Mechanical techniques . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2. Ultrasound techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . acoustic methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824 824 824 825 826 826 826 826 826 826 827 827 827 827 827 827 827 828
3.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +27 21 808 4064; fax: +27 21 808 3743. E-mail address: opara@sun.ac.za (U.L. Opara). 0963-9969/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2013.01.046
824
L. Chen, U.L. Opara / Food Research International 51 (2013) 823835
3.2.3. Optical techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Advantages and disadvantages of instrumental measurement approaches 3.4. Mechanical instruments used to measure food texture . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Relationships between sensory and instrumental measurement . . . . . . . . . . 5. Standardization of texture measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
828 828 829 830 831 831 831 831
1. Introduction Texture is one of the key quality attributes used in the fresh and processed food industry to assess product quality and acceptability. Texture attributes are also used along the food value chain to monitor and control quality, ranging from decision about readiness to harvest to assessing the impacts of postharvest handling and processing operation on product shelf life and consumer preference and acceptability. Postharvest handling and operating conditions such as storage temperature usually have distinct effects on food texture properties (Farag, Lyng, Morgan, & Cronin, 2009; Konopacka & Plocharski, 2004; Lana, Tijskens, & van Kooten, 2005). Food formulation practices are also often associated with desirable or undesirable changes in texture (Foegeding, akr, & Ko, 2010; Morris & Morris, 2012; Pedreschia & Moyano, 2005; Saeleaw & Schleining, 2011a; Sudha, Srivastava, Vetrimani, & Leelavathi, 2007). Textural quality attributes of food may be evaluated by descriptive sensory (subjective) or instrumental (objective) analyses. The combination of time and high cost associated with sensory analysis has motivated the development and widespread use of empirical mechanical tests which correlate with sensory analysis of food texture. Over the years, a wide range of instrumental tests has been used in both research and industry to assess food texture. Often the choice of any particular instrument and analytical procedure depends on costs and availability of expertise within the organization. Food texture has been dened as all the rheological and structural (geometric and surface) attributes of the product perceptible by means of mechanical, tactile, and where appropriate, visual and auditory receptors (Lawless & Heymann, 1998). Many food scientists, engineers and technologists evaluate mechanical properties to understand subjective texture (Damez & Clerjon, 2008; Saeleaw & Schleining, 2011b), while material scientists have been developing rheological and fracture mechanics approaches to understand the properties of food material in general (Ross, 2009). More recently, another group of researchers has focused on the fundamental understanding of the biological mechanisms involved in mastication, oral processing and oral sensation (Chen, 2009; Chen & Stokes, 2012). Among the latest reviews, some (Awad, Moharram, Shaltout, Asker, & Youssef, 2012; de Wijk, Janssen, & Prinz, 2011; Foegeding et al., 2011; Funami, 2011; Guessasma, Chaunier, Della Valle, & Lourdin, 2011; Ross, 2009; Saeleaw & Schleining, 2011b; Szczesniak, 2002) have examined specic aspects of food texture including sensory and instrumental measurement, oral processing, non-invasive techniques (such as application of low and high ultrasound techniques); others have emphasized specic food products such as meat, fruit, sh and dairy (Damez & Clerjon, 2008; Dowlati, Mohtasebi, & de la Guardia, 2012; Drake, 2007; Foegeding et al., 2010; Foucquier et al., 2012; Harker, Redgwell, Hallett, Murray, & Carter, 2010; Mizrach, 2008; Ruiz-Altisent et al., 2010; Sila et al., 2008). The aim of this article is to provide a review of recent technological developments in food texture measurement, including subjective and objective methods. Starting with an overview of the approaches and limitations of sensory evaluation of food texture, the review also discusses the relationships between sensory and instrumental measurement.
2. Sensory evaluation of texture an overview Subjective measurement of texture, often referred to as sensory perception or sensory evaluation, encompasses all methods to measure, analyze and interpret human responses to the properties of foods and materials as perceived by the ve senses: taste, smell, touch, sight and hearing (Civille & Ofteda, 2012; de Liz Pocztaruk et al., 2011). Bourne (2002) classied these methods as oral and nonoral. In sensory science, which is a tool for documenting and understanding human responses to external stimuli (Foegeding et al., 2011), texture measurement is carried out by trained or untrained taste panels (Kealy, 2006). The approach used in sensory analysis depends on the type of food and specic goals of assessment. 2.1. Use of sensory panels in food texture measurement Traditionally, sensory attributes are assessed using a panel consisting of 6 to 10 (Foegeding et al., 2011), 6 to 12 (Drake, 2007), or 8 to 16 (Brookeld, Nicoll, Gunson, Harker, & Wohlers, 2011) members who have been trained in sensory evaluation methodologies. The commonly accepted or required number of panelists is about 10, but more variable in fresh foods, ranging from 1 to 23 (Table 1). The use of small sensory teams (b 6 individuals) is often faced with the question as to whether the results are statistically and scientically reasonable. Nevertheless, literature evidence shows that small panels can be used effectively for postharvest assessments of sensory properties of fruits, such as apples, where they focus on a small number of attributes (Brookeld et al., 2011). Furthermore, the extent of training of panelists varies considerably and this may affect the sensory results obtained. In one recent study on avocado, the one panelist used had over 15-year experience in avocado postharvest assessment (Gamble et al., 2010). Chambers, Allison, and Chambersiv (2004) found that only limited training may be necessary to nd differences among products for many texture attributes and some avor attributes; however, extensive training may be required to reduce variation among panelists and increase the discriminant abilities of panelists. Several terminologies have been used to describe the degrees of training and ability in sensory analysis, ranging from semi-trained, trained, highly experienced/trained, and expert (Albert, Varela, Salvador, Hough, & Fiszman, 2011; BArcenas et al., 2007; akr et al., 2012; Taniwaki, Takahashi, Sakurai, Takada and Nagata, 2009; Whetstine et al., 2007). Overall, evidence from literature show that essentially anyone between the ages of 19 and 69 could be part of a sensory panel and the panel can be made of any number depending on experience and the circumstances. Where information on hedonic liking, preference or purchase intentions is required in food analysis, it has been recommended that the sensory panel should be composed of untrained product consumers, and the number of panelists is expected to be higher and at least 70 (Civille & Ofteda, 2012). However, many studies have used a smaller number of untrained panelists (Table 2), especially when the results of sensory perception are used in combination with instrumental results. Furthermore, evidence from literature (Brookeld et al., 2011; Heenan, Dufour, Hamid, Harvey, & Delahunty, 2010, Heenan, Hamid, Dufour, Harvey, & Delahunty, 2009; Ross, Chauvin, & Whiting, 2009)
L. Chen, U.L. Opara / Food Research International 51 (2013) 823835 Table 1 Characterizations of trained sensory panel used to study fresh and processed food texture. Number of panelists 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 Age (yrs) 2650 2546 2064 1962 2448 2260 Food type (s) Avocado Pear Apple Apple Beef rib steak; cream cheese; biscuits; persimmon Cheddar cheese; snack model and bread model products Parma hams; mixed gels; toasted rusk roll; semi-solid foods; Parma hams; European raw ewes' milk cheese varieties Crust and crumb; potato chips; custard Salvelinus alpines (sh); acid milk gels; hot served sh nuggets; snack bars; cake; moth bean our dough; roasted almonds; agarose gels; commercially-available starch-based full-fat vanilla; custard dessert; apple Tortilla corn chip product; bread, cake and biscuit; crisp; apple Biscuits; rye-based extrudates; butter fat-in-water emulsions; mixed gels; cherry; apple Commercial cornakes; apple Jellies; Cheddar cheese Young cheese; mayonnaises and dressings; apple Vanilla custard desserts Apple Wheat akes; lled dark chocolate Fluid food products Reference
825
11 12 13 14 15 21 23 25 30
2455 2469 2357 2231 2234 2035 2035
Gamble et al. (2010) Taniwaki, Hanada, Tohro, et al. (2009b) Brookeld et al. (2011) Arana, Jaren, and Arazuri (2004) Caine, Aalhus, Best, Dugan, and Jeremiah (2003), Kealy (2006), Sudha et al. (2007), Taniwaki, Hanada and Sakurai (2009) Rogers et al. (2009), Dijksterhuis et al. (2007) Benedini et al. (2012), akr et al. (2012), Castro-Prada et al. (2009), de Wijk, Wulfert, and Prinz (2006), Benedini et al. (2012), Brcenas et al. (2007) Polaki, Xasapis, Fasseas, Yanniotis, and Mandala (2010), Salvador et al. (2009), Janssen et al. (2007) Gins, Valdimarsdottir, Sveinsdottir, and Thorarensen (2004), Pereira, Matia-Merinoa, Jones, and Singh (2006), Albert et al. (2011), Greve et al. (2010), Heenan et al. (2010), Bhattacharya (2010), Varela et al. (2008), Barrangou et al. (2006), de Wijk, Polet, Bult, and Prinz (2008), Zdunek, Cybulsk, et al. (2010), Zdunek, Konopacka, et al. (2010) Bruwer, MacGregor, and Bourg (2007), Heenan et al. (2009), Rojo and Vincent (2009), Zdunek et al. (2011), Ioannides et al. (2007) Kim et al. (2012), Saeleaw et al. (2012), Akhtar, Murray, and Dickinson (2006), akr et al. (2012), Ross et al. (2009), Costa et al. (2011) Chaunier et al. (2005), Ioannides et al. (2007, 2009); Blancher et al. (2007), Whetstine et al. (2007) Brown, Foegeding, Daubert, Drake, and Gumpertz (2003), de Wijk, Engelena, and Prinz (2003), Harker et al. (2002) de Wijk et al. (2003) Costa et al. (2011) Lenfant, Loret, Pineau, Hartmann, and Martin (2009), Ali, Selamat, Man, and Suria (2001) Chen et al. (2008)
shows that in trained sensory studies, the number of female panelists is often higher than that of male panelists but the high degree of training and experience of all panelists reduces gender bias. In the untrained panels, the numbers of females and males are almost the same (de Liz Pocztaruk et al., 2011; Varela, Salvador, & Fiszman, 2008, 2009). 2.2. Sensory scale Usually, panelists use some common sensory terms to describe food texture. For example, the texture of potato chips is often described in terms of crispness, hardness and crunchiness (Salvador, Varela, Sanz, & Fiszman, 2009). Since language richness seems to be an inuential factor explaining differences in sensory characterization among different countries (Blancher et al., 2007), the use of sensory scales is a popular method adopted by researchers. In most studies, attribute intensities are rated on a continuous, unstructured graphical intensity scale, the left side of the scale usually corresponding to the lowest intensity (value 0 or 1) and
the right side to the highest intensity (value 5, 7, 9, 10, 15, 100, 150, or even 1000) of the attribute (Arimi, Duggan, O'Sullivan, Lyng, & O'Riordan, 2010b; Benedini, Parolari, Toscani, & Virgili, 2012; CastroPrada, Primp-Martin, Meinder, Hamer, & Van Vliet, 2009; Costa et al., 2011; Harker et al., 2002; Heenan et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2012; Marzec, Kowalska, & Zadrozna, 2010; Nguyen et al., 2010; Oraguzie et al., 2009; Primo-Martn, Castro-Prada, Meinders, Vereijken, & van Vliet, 2008; Rogers et al., 2009; Rojo & Vincent, 2009; Salvador et al., 2009; Taniwaki, Hanada, Tohro & Sakurai, 2009; Varela et al., 2009; Zdunek, Cybulska, Konopacka, & Rutkowski, 2011). When the larger score ranges were used, computer programs for automated sensory analysis were likely applied (Castro-Prada et al., 2009; Dijksterhuis, Luyten, de Wijk, & Mojet, 2007). However, the choice of the starting point in the scale (0 or 1) and the upper limit just depends on the researcher. Sensory science has also developed several other methodologies, such as the projective mapping technique under the name of Napping procedure (Pags, 2005) and ash prole (Dairou & Siefffermann, 2002). Recently, Varela and Ares (2012) reviewed
Table 2 Characterizations of untrained sensory panel used to study fresh and processed food texture. Number of panelists 7 9 10 1317 14 15 20 24 30 40 50 100 115/102 130 220 240 713 Age (yrs) 2555 2436 2060 1941 1950 1860 2065 Food type (s) Carrot zucchini, apricot, red radish, and jicama Four different cheese products Four types of commercial biscuits Jellies Butter fat-in-water emulsions Cornakes Cookies; hot served sh nuggets Crispy biscuits A kind of cheese analog; bread Sausages New Zealand King Salmon Roasted almonds; cherry Bread, cake and biscuit Roasted almonds and two different types of extruded snacks Beef Beef steak Beef steak Reference Nguyen et al. (2010) Dan and Kohyama (2007) Arimi et al. (2010b) Blancher et al. (2007) Akhtar, Stenzel, Murray, and Dickinson (2005) Gregson (2002) Gupta, Bawa, and Abu-Ghannam (2011), Albert et al. (2011) de Liz Pocztaruk et al., 2011 Cunha, Dias, and Viotto (2010), Wang et al. (2007) Lee and Kwon (2007) Larsen, Quek, and Eyres (2011) Varela et al. (2008), Ross et al. (2009) Heenan et al. (2009) Varela et al. (2009) Destefanis et al. (2008) Yancey et al. (2010) Voges et al. (2007)
826
the implementation, advantages and disadvantages of novel product proling techniques developed in the last ten years. 2.3. Limitations of sensory perception The sensory response to a food mechanical stimulus is non-linear and can be affected by adaptation and fatigue (Peleg, 2006), and level of training received by the participants (Brcenas et al., 2007). Unlike man-made machines operating in their designed load range, the sensory sensitivity of humans depends on rheological properties of the tissues involved (Peleg, 2006), other basic attributes (such as taste and aroma) of the foods (van Vliet, van Aken, de Jongh, & Hamer, 2009), and even the containers of the food (Piqueras-Fiszman & Spence, 2012). A trained sensory panel, also like any instrument for measurement, requires regular calibration and maintenance (Foegeding et al., 2011). In comparison with instrumental measurement, sensory evaluation is time consuming and expensive (Kim et al., 2012; Wang, Zhou, & Isabelle, 2007). Researchers have also shown that sensory perception had limited success in assessing large cultivar collections and breeding materials (Costa et al., 2011). 3. Instrumental measurement of food texture To overcome the limitations of sensory perception of food texture as discussed in Section 2.3, objective measurement involving instrumental approaches have been developed (Costa et al., 2011), and a great deal of effort has been expended in improving the instruments and measurement techniques for meaningful estimation of textural properties (Oraguzie et al., 2009; Zdunek, Cybulsk, Konopacka, & Rutkowski, 2010, Zdunek, Konopacka, & Jesionkowska, 2010). Since texture perceived in the mouth largely depends on the mechanical behavior of food which will determine the dynamics of breakdown during eating (Foegeding et al., 2010), most of the objective measurement research are based on the mechanical/rheological properties of foods. The types of experiments can be classied as fundamental, empirical and imitative methods. Fundamental tests have been developed by scientists and engineers interested in the theory and practice of materials of construction, and they may not be very useful in measuring what is sensed in the mouth when food is masticated (Bourne, 2002). Thus, empirical and imitative instrumental tests have been commonly used to quantify the texture properties of foods (Barrangou, Drake, Daubert, & Foegeding, 2006; Toivonen & Brummell, 2008). A wide range of destructive and non-destructive methodologies and relevant instruments has been used to measure the texture of fresh and processed foods. 3.1. Destructive methods 3.1.1. Three-point bending test During the three-point bending test, force is applied to the center of the sample, such as biscuits (James et al., 2011), potato crisps (Rojo & Vincent, 2009) and cornakes (Chaunier, Della Valle, & Lourdin, 2007), by an anvil until fracture occurs. The crosshead speed ranges from 1 mm/min to 120 mm/min (James et al., 2011; Rojo & Vincent, 2009). Based on the data of fracture stress and strain, the Young's modulus of food material can be achieved (Kim et al., 2012). 3.1.2. Single-edge notched bend (SENB) test The SENB test is a well-established test method, in which, the test specimens have to satisfy the standard requirements for their geometry. Similar to the three-point bending test, the whole instrumental test strip is placed across two support anvils. The notch is made on the underside, and force is applied from the top to the center of the test strip by a third anvil until fracture occurs. The speed of the third anvil is often at 2 mm/s (Brookeld et al., 2011; Harker, White, Gunson, Hallett, & De Silva, 2006). Fracture toughness (including critical stress intensity factor
and fracture energy) of food, for example biscuits (James et al., 2011) or apples (Brookeld et al., 2011; Harker et al., 2006), can be evaluated.
3.1.3. Compression and puncture test Compression test and puncture test are the most common methods to measure food texture properties. The testing foods may be solid or semi-solid. For instance, the compressing sample foods include gels (akr et al., 2012), gram (Sasikala, Ravi, & Narasimha, 2011), apple rings (Farris, Gobbi, Torreggiani, & Piergiovanni, 2008), cornakes (Chaunier et al., 2007), cheese (Dan & Kohyama, 2007), cellular cornstarch extrudates (Agbisit, Alavi, Cheng, Herald, & Trater, 2007), bread crumb (Le-Bail, Boumali, Jury, Ben-Aissa, & Zuniga, 2009) and carrot (De Roeck, Mols, Duvetter, Van Loey, & Hendrickx, 2010; Sila, Smout, Vu, & Hendrickx, 2004); the puncturing sample foods include apple (Brookeld et al., 2011; Harker et al., 2006; Ioannides et al., 2007, 2009), kiwifruit (White, De Silva, Requejo-Tapia, & Harker, 2005), potato slices (Troncoso & Pedreschi, 2007) and cereal snacks (Tsukakoshi, Naito, & Ishida, 2007). These types of texture tests can be carried out on whole fruit or parts (skin, pulp or skin and pulp) depending on the research purpose (Rolle et al., 2012). Sometimes, the two tests have been employed in one research. Takahashi, Hayakawa, Kumagai, Akiyama, and Kohyama (2009) evaluated eleven solid foods by compression and puncture tests. Nguyen et al. (2010) tested several processed vegetables and fruits, and Sirisomboon, Tanaka, and Kojima (2012), Sirisomboon, Tanaka, Kojima, and Williams, Sirisomboon and Pornchaloempong (2011) investigated the rmness, hardness, energy absorption of tomato, pomelo and mango fruit by the two methods. For both compression and puncture tests, the probes are usually cylindrical in shape, while the diameters of heads are quite different. In compression tests, they can be 10 mm (Sasikala et al., 2011), 25 mm (De Roeck et al., 2010), 80 mm (Farris et al., 2008) and even 150 mm like a plate (Takahashi et al., 2009). In puncture tests, the diameter of the head (plunger) is often smaller such as 11 mm (Ioannides et al., 2009), 2 mm (Nguyen et al., 2010), or even 1 mm like a needle (Tsukakoshi et al., 2007). With regard to the puncture crosshead testing speed, it is likely to be several millimeters per second such as 4 mm/s (Ioannides et al., 2009); however, the compression crosshead speed can range from 10 mm/min to 30 mm/s (Moreira, Chenlo, Chaguri, & Fernandes, 2008; Varela et al., 2008). Similarly, the puncture depth is usually several millimeters mainly depending on the size of samples while deformation of the original height by compressing can be 75% (Farahnaky, Azizi, & Gavahian, 2012), 50% (Jaworska & Bernas, 2010) and 25% (akr et al., 2012) depending on the mechanical properties of samples as long as the maximum compression force is achieved. Based on literature evidence, the minimum number of samples for each measurement is ve, which has been discussed further by Rolle et al. (2012). In these compression or puncture experiments, the performing force, deformation percentage or puncture depth and crosshead speed are the concerned parameters. However, the relationships between the force or other property parameters and the crosshead speed are seldom discussed (Castro-Prada et al., 2009). Texture prole analysis (TPA) test, which is based on the imitation of mastication or chewing process, is performed with double-compression cycles. For irregular shape testing, the food sample is often cut into cylindrical shapes. For example, Jaworska and Bernas (2010) cut cylindrical samples (20 mm in length and diameter) out of mushrooms (caps and stipes, respectively). Through TPA test, a wide range of food texture properties, such as hardness, springiness, cohesiveness, adhesiveness, resiliency, fracturability, wateriness, gumminess, sliminess, and chewiness, can be analyzed (de Huidobro, Miguel, Blzquez, & Onega, 2005; Guin & Barroca, 2012; Jaworska & Bernas, 2010). Magness-Taylor puncture test (M-T) is the current industry standard method for fruit esh rmness analysis, which is based on force-deformation characteristics of the fruit esh mimicking the mouth-feeling of the consumer (Lu & Tipper, 2009; Qing, Ji, &
827
Zude, 2008; Ruiz-Altisent, Lle, & Riquelme, 2006). In this test, the maximum force is recorded as a measure of fruit rmness. 3.1.4. Stress relaxation test Stress relaxation test is mainly used to analyze the viscoelastic property of semi-solid foods, such as sh (Herrero & Careche, 2005), cheese (Del Nobile, Chillo, Mentana, & Baiano, 2007), sausage (Andrs, Zaritzky, & Califano, 2008) and our dough (Bhattacharya, 2010). During measurement, the sample is compressed to an expected strain at a certain speed and the decreasing force is recorded during the relaxation time which may range from 1 min to 10 min (Andrs et al., 2008; Del Nobile et al., 2007; Herrero & Careche, 2005). The decaying stress and the applied stain are related by relaxation modulus, where the relaxation modulus is usually calculated by using a generalized Maxwell model. 3.1.5. WarnerBratzler shear force (WBSF) test The WBSF test has been used since the 1930s and remains the most widely used instrumental measure of meat tenderness (Destefanis, Brugiapaglia, Barge, & Dal Molin, 2008; Girard, Bruce, Basarab, Larsen, & Aalhus, 2012). The head or blade can be mounted on different texture analyzing machines such as the Texture Analyzer (Cai, Chen, Wan, & Zhao, 2011), Instron devices (Yancey, Apple, Meullenet, & Sawyer, 2010) or other universal test machines (Lorenzen et al., 2010). During testing, meat sample cores are sheared perpendicular to the muscle ber orientation (Destefanis et al., 2008). A minimum of six 1.27 cm cores from throughout the steak, and an instrument crosshead speed of 200250 mm/min are required (Derington et al., 2011) following the guidelines of the American Meat Science Association (AMSA, 1995). Usually, the most considered parameter of the forcedistance/ time curve is the maximum shear force. 3.1.6. Tests using a combination of mechanical and acoustic methods Typical characteristic for many hard, crispy and crunchy solid products is their brittle fracture behavior, mostly accompanied by a sharp sound (acoustic emission or vibration) which is closely related to their texture attributes (Maruyama, Arce, Ribeiro, & Costa, 2008; Taniwaki, Hanada, & Sakurai, 2006; van Vliet & Primo-Martn, 2011). Thus, researchers have combined mechanical tests, such as compression, penetration or three-point bending test, with acoustic signal analysis. For both drycrispy and wetcrispy foods, the methods of evaluation can be divided into two groups, namely mechanical devices combined with acoustic emission detector (AED) and those combined with piezoelectric sensor. When used in combination with the AED test, forcedisplacement and sound amplitudetime signals were simultaneously recorded and the results showed that major acoustic signals were observed together with application of force (Chen, Karlsson, & Povey, 2005; Zdunek & Bednarczyk, 2006). This coincidence was interpreted as an energy release in the form of sound as a result of material fracturing (Zdunek, Cybulsk, et al., 2010, Zdunek, Konopacka, et al., 2010). From the sound data, the maximum sound pressure, number of sound peaks, sound curve length and area under amplitudetime curve were obtained (Arimi, Duggan, O'Sullivan, Lyng, & O'Riordan, 2010a,b, Arimi et al., 2010b; Salvador et al., 2009). Products perceived as uncrispy emitted signals with lower average amplitude and higher peaks, at low frequencies and opposed a high mechanical resistance to compression. On the other hand, the crispiest akes emitted sounds with larger average amplitude and fewer high peaks, uniformly distributed in the frequency domain with a moderated mechanical resistance (Chaunier, Courcoux, Della Valle, & Lourdin, 2005). This mechanical acoustic combining strategy has been successfully applied to measure crispness of fruits such as apple (Marzec et al., 2010; Zdunek, Cybulsk, et al., 2010, Zdunek, Konopacka, et al., 2010, Zdunek et al., 2011), which was demonstrated to correlate with human sensory perception (Costa et al., 2011). Recently, an increasing number of researchers have adopted the Texture Analyzer (TA-XT plus) (Chen et al., 2005; Costa et al., 2011, 2012; Saeleaw, Drrschmid, & Schleining, 2012;
Salvador et al., 2009; Sanz, Primo-Martn, & van Vliet, 2007; Taniwaki & Kohyama, 2012; Varela et al., 2009) in texture measurement since the AED has become one selective part of the instrument. Other instruments combining a mechanical device with a piezoelectric sensor have been used to detect the vibration produced by fracture when a probe is inserted into a food product (Taniwaki et al., 2006). The types of food products studied using this method include potato chips, cabbage leaves, pear, persimmon, and grape esh (Iwatani, Yakushiji, Mitani, & Sakurai, 2011; Taniwaki, Hanada & Sakurai, 2009; Taniwaki, Hanada, Tohro, et al., 2009; Taniwaki, Takahashi, et al., 2009; Taniwaki, Sakura, & Kato, 2010; Taniwaki & Sakurai, 2008). 3.1.7. Imitative methods Destructive methods which mimic the biting process during eating follow the motion of the bite by incisors or mastication by molars (Fig. 1) and are often referred to as tooth methods (Jiang, Wang, van Santen, & Chappell, 2008). For example, Varela et al. (2009) used tooth-like probes to compress snacks, which proved to be as good as traditional penetration tests to assess crispy characteristics. It was also demonstrated that results obtained at slow and high tooth-like probe speeds could be complementary, showing the parameters obtained at lower test speeds to be better correlated to human perception and the in-mouth fracture pattern to be more effectively characterized at higher compression speeds (Varela et al., 2008). Lately, Chung, Degner, and McClements (2012) developed a method to characterize the texture attributes of semi-solid foods during instrumental mastication, where articial saliva can be used. Experiments showed that this technique can be used to monitor textural changes of starch-based food products during oral processing. 3.1.8. Other destructive methods Except for the methods discussed above, there still are some other useful destructive tests, for example, probe tensile separation method which is employed to measure the stickiness of uid foods (Chen, Feng, Gonzalez, & Pugnaloni, 2008), cutting-shear test which is used to evaluate the degree of cells being held together and the cutting force of fresh food (Emadi, Kosse, & Yarlagadda, 2005), and the traction test, which has been proved to be a valid technique that can be used to measure fundamental mechanical parameters of food during a certain period (Svanberg, Ahrne, Loren, & Windhab, 2012, 2013). 3.2. Non-destructive methods Non-destructive testing of texture in fresh and processed foods is critical for monitoring and controlling product quality. Table 3 summarizes some examples of the application of non-destructive techniques in food texture measurement. 3.2.1. Mechanical techniques Non-destructive mechanical techniques used in food texture include the measurement of quasi-static force-deformation (Ruiz-Altisent et al., 2010), impact response (Herrero-Langreo, Fernndez-Ahumada, Roger,
Fig. 1. Idealized loading of a food particle supported by cusps (left: before loading, middle: on bending like a beam to a displacement , and right: after cracking). The letters F, l, b, t and a are the vertical force, span, breadth, thickness and notch length, respectively. (Lucas, Prinz, Agrawal, & Bruce, 2002).
828
Table 3 Non-destructive techniques used in texture measurement of foods. Technique Quasi-static forcedeformation Impact response Texture property Food product (s) Reference
Firmness Fruits and vegetables Tijskens et al. (2009), Ruiz-Altisent et al. (2010) Firmness, mealiness Apple, kiwifruit, peach Harker et al. (2002), Arana et al. (2004), Molina-Delgado et al. (2009), Ragni, Berardinelli and Guarnieri (2010), Herrero-Langreo et al. (2012) Finger method (compression) Indentation force Catsh let Jiang et al. (2008) Bioyield detection Firmness Apple Lu and Tipper (2009), Mendoza et al. (2012) Acoustic vibration Texture index Cabbage Taniwaki and Sakurai (2008) Acoustic impulse resonance Flesh rmness Pear, apple Gmez et al. (2005), Zude, Herold, Roger, Bellon-Maurel, and Landahl (2006), Molina-Delgado et al. (2009), Mendoza et al. (2012) Laser Doppler vibrometer Elastic properties Persimmon, pear Sakurai, Iwatani, Terasaki, and Yamamoto (2005b), Terasaki et al. (2006) Velocity of sound transmitting in samples Firmness Kiwifruit Muramatsu et al. (1997) Video analysis Rigor mortis Sturgeon Oliveira, O'Keefe, and Balaban (2004) Electronic nose Firmness (ripeness) Apple, pear, mandarin Brezmes et al. (2005), Zhang, Wang, and Ye (2008a,b); Gmez et al. (2007) Ultrasonic Hardness, softness, Cheese, fruits Benedito, Crcel, Clemente, et al. (2000), Benedito, Crcel, Sanjuan, et al. (2000), rmness, mealiness Benedito, Gonzles, et al. (2000), Benedito, Crcel, Gonzalez and Mulet (2002), Benedito et al. (2006), Mizrach, Flitsanov, Akerman, and Zauberman (2000), Mizrach et al. (2003), Mizrach (2008), Bechar et al. (2005), Kim et al. (2009) Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) Ripeness, mealiness Apple Marigheto, Venturi, and Hills (2008) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Softening/rmness Pear Zhou and Li (2007) Waveguide spectroscopy Firmness Kiwifruit Ragni et al. (2012) Fluorescence Mealiness Apple Moshou, Wahlen, Strasser, Schenk, and Ramon (2003) Visible/near/mid-infrared spectroscopy Mealiness, rmness, Fruits, cucumber, beef Benedito et al. (2006), Ruiz-Altisent et al. (2006), Kavdir et al. (2007), Nicola et al. tenderness (2007), Subedi and Walsh (2009), Valente, Leardi, Self, Luciano, and Pain (2009), Bureau et al. (2009), Yancey et al. (2010), Mendoza et al. (2012), Sirisomboon, Tanaka, Kojima, and Williams (2012) Hyperspectral scattering technique Firmness Apple and peach Lu (2007), Lu and Peng (2006), Peng and Lu (2008), Huang and Lu (2010), Mendoza et al. (2012), Herrero-Langreo et al. (2012) Time-resolved (domain) Firmness Fruits Valero et al. (2004), Tijskens et al. (2007), Nicola et al. (2007), Rizzolo et al. (2009) reectance spectroscopy Raman spectroscopy Tenderness Beef Beattie, Bell, Farmer, Moss, and Desmond (2004) Light back scattering images Firmness Apple Qing et al. (2008)
Palags, & Lle, 2012; Ragni, Berardinelli, & Guarnieri, 2010), nger compression (Jiang et al., 2008), and bioyield detection (Mendoza, Lu, & Cen, 2012). Similar to the destructive measurement, the mechanical methods are often combined with the indirect ones. For example, the product is excited by means of a small impact, and the vibration (about 2020,000 Hz) is measured using a microphone, piezoelectric sensors or laser vibrometers (Gmez, Wang, & Pereira, 2005; Ruiz-Altisent et al., 2010). 3.2.2. Ultrasound techniques Among the indirect methods of food texture measurement, ultrasound technology provides one of the foundations for a non-destructive, fast and reliable technique for correlating specic quality-related indices and characteristics during growth and maturation, and in the course of storage and shelf-life, until readiness for consumption (Mizrach, 2008). Ultrasound techniques are relatively cheap, simple and energy saving, and thus have become an emerging technology for probing food products (Awad et al., 2012). The mechanical structure of the tissue, its physicochemical quality indices, and each change in the quality attributes of the fruit, affect the energy of the received signal (Bechar, Mizrach, Barreiro, & Landah, 2005). Ultrasound technology is suitable for quality measurement in various products such as porous food products (Benedito, Simal, Clemente, & Mulet, 2006), and fruit and vegetables (Mizrach et al., 2003; Saeleaw & Schleining, 2011b). The most important mechanical property of fruit and vegetable that correlates with ultrasound characteristics is rmness and the results are most likely to be compared with destructive methods such as M-T rmness test (Mizrach, 2008). 3.2.3. Optical techniques Optical texture measurement techniques have been reported to hold great promise for mealiness detection and classication in fruit because they usually are rapid and non-destructive or non-invasive and, more importantly, they can provide a large amount of information about the condition or status of a product (Huang & Lu, 2010). Proper data processing and analysis are critical for achieving superior results
by these techniques (Huang & Lu, 2010; Lu, 2007). Looking at the enormous number of literature produced during the last fteen years, one group of optical methods, visible/near/mid-infrared spectroscopy, may be considered the most researched non-destructive techniques for the assessment of internal food quality (Ragni, Cevoli, Berardinelli, & Silaghi, 2012). Firmness of fruit and vegetables and tenderness of meat based on infrared spectroscopy have been investigated by researchers (Kavdir, Lu, Ariana, & Ngouajio, 2007; Kojima, Fjita, Tanaka, & Sirisomboon, 2004; Nicola et al., 2007; Sirisomboon, Tanaka, Kojima & Williams, 2012; Subedi & Walsh, 2009; Yancey et al., 2010). Comparisons of several non-destructive methods of texture measurement have been made in recent times. These researches (Herrero-Langreo et al., 2012; Mendoza et al., 2012; Molina-Delgado et al., 2009) demonstrated that the fused systems of measurement provided more complete and complementary information and, thus, were more effective than individual sensors in food quality prediction. 3.3. Advantages and disadvantages of instrumental measurement approaches For a certain food product, such as apple, usually several instrumental approaches could be chosen for texture measurement. Fig. 2 shows a wide range of destructive and non-destructive, as well as acoustic optical instrumental methods of texture measurement used for solid and semi-solid foods such as apples. Choice of any method depends on the purpose of measurement and specic conditions required. Table 4 summarizes the characteristics of typical texture measurement approaches, including their advantages and disadvantages. Fundamental measurement methods, such as the single-edge notched bend (SENB) test are linked with microstructural and molecular mechanisms, where materials under test must be homogeneous and isotropic, and geometric in shape so that stresses and strains can be precisely calculated. This requirement clearly limits their applicability to a wide range of food types (Foegeding, Brown, Drake, & Daubert, 2003). Such tests are generally slow to perform and do not correlate as well with sensory
829
evaluation as do empirical tests (Bourne, 2002) in comparison with compression and puncture tests which are easier to perform with instrumentation that are generally less expensive to purchase and operate (Claus, 1995). Empirical measurements such as compression and puncture tests have problems of poor denition of what is being measured, the arbitrariness of the test and frequently no available absolute standard (Bourne, 2002). Recently, non-destructive methods such as ultrasound and optical have emerged as common tools for the measurement and analysis of the texture in semi-solid food such as fruit. In comparison with fundamental and empirical measurement approaches, non-destructive measurements have the advantages of being quick, easily installed online and allow continuous evaluation of texture properties on different parts of the same item without producing waste and subsequent losses (Molina-Delgado et al., 2009). However, the high price and operating cost of non-destructive texture measurement equipment are prohibitive and often hinder their widespread application in food research.
3.4. Mechanical instruments used to measure food texture The use of mechanical instruments still holds the dominant position in food texture measurement. Literature evidence shows that there are two main instruments used in texture research of solid and semi-solid foods: the Texture Analyzer (TA) (Stable Micro Systems Ltd.) (Al-Said, Opara, & Al-Yahyai, 2009; Farahnaky et al., 2012; Greve, Lee, Meullenet, & Kunz, 2010; Li et al., 2012; de Liz Pocztaruk et al., 2011), and the Instron testing machine (Instron Ltd.) (Benedini et al., 2012; Brookeld et al., 2011; akr et al., 2012; Farag et al., 2009; Svanberg et al., 2012). Among the models of Texture Analyzer, TA-XT2i, TA-XT2 and TA.XT plus appear to be the most popular in food texture research. Compared with the Instron, TA focuses more on food texture measurement and is convenient for both academic and industrial use. However, Instron is a kind of general and professional instrument for studying mechanical properties of different materials. Nowadays, most researchers combine each of these instruments with other measuring techniques for obtaining more information during
Fig. 2. Different instrumental measurement approaches to apple texture properties: (a) penetration test; (b) SENB test; (c) combination of puncture test and acoustic emission (AE) method; (d) ultrasonic method; (e) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); (f) visible and shortwave near-infrared (VisSWNIR) spectroscopy; (g) online hyperspectral scattering system (Harker, Maindonald, & Jacson, 1996; Harker et al., 2006; Kim, Lee, Kim, & Cho, 2009; Ltal et al., 2003; Mendoza, Lu and Cen, 2012; Zdunek, Cybulsk, et al., 2010). Group in red are destructive measurements; group in purple are non-destructive measurements; group in green are acoustic methods; group in blue are optical methods.
830
L. Chen, U.L. Opara / Food Research International 51 (2013) 823835 Young's modulus; Fracture toughness Solid or semi-solid Hardness, rmness, (e.g., apple rings, carrots, cheese, meat) tenderness, springiness, adhesiveness, chewiness, etc. Destructive; lack of guides for the size and shape of Fruits and dry solid (e.g., potato slices, cereal snack) Firmness, crispness punches and operating methods (such as penetration depth and speed) Calculated results usually by using empirical models; Semi-solid (e.g., sh, sausage, cheese, our dough) Viscoelastic properties no clear connection with mouth feeling Less information (relative to TPA) for comparing Meat Tenderness with sensory penal data; destructive Lack of knowledge of the relationship between Hard, crispy and crunchy solid (e.g., potato chips, Crispness, crunchiness crispness and crushing sounds fruit, vegetables) Fruit, vegetables Firmness Limited knowledge of the responses of fruit and vegetable tissues to ultrasonic waves; lack of suitable equipment or components Expensive equipment; complicated data analysis Fruit, vegetables, meat Mealiness, tenderness
Destructive; slow to perform; no clear connection with mouth feeling Usually destructive; lack of guidelines and standards for operations
experiments. For instance, researchers have combined TA with an acoustic envelope device (Costa et al., 2012; Sanz et al., 2007), while others have combined Instron with I-Scan system to obtain twodimensional stress distribution maps during compression (Dan, Azuma, & Kohyama, 2007). In addition to the equipment described above, there are also some other popular texture measuring instruments used in food texture measurement and analysis. Magness-Taylor tester (Lehman-Salada, 1996), manual Effegi penetrometer (Ragni et al., 2012) and digital penetrometer (Ragni et al., 2010) which are based on the M-T puncture test, are often used in texture analysis of solid and semi-solid fresh food products (Harker, Kupferman, Marin, Gunson, & Triggs, 2008; Ioannides et al., 2007, 2009; Iwatani et al., 2011; Oraguzie et al., 2009). The rheometer and viscoanalyzer are widely applied to test liquid or semi-solid samples (Chaunier et al., 2007; Janssen, Terpstra, De Wijk, & Prinz, 2007; Kealy, 2006). Many brands and models of universal testing machines are employed in food texture research as well (Schouten, Natalini, Tijskens, Woltering, & van Kooten, 2010; Tijskens et al., 2009; Zdunek, Konopacka, et al., 2010). Several researchers have also reported the development and application of novel texture measurement devices which are not commercially available. A twister for measuring in-situ rmness of eshy food products based on crushing strength was reported (Opara, Studman, & Banks, 1997; Studman & Yuwana, 1992). Japanese researchers have reported the design and application of an acoustic measurement device to investigate fruit and vegetable rmness (Sakurai, Iwatani, Terasaki, & Yamamoto, 2005a; Taniwaki et al., 2006). Lu and Tipper (2009) designed a non-destructive portable bioyield device for fruit rmness measurement. 4. Relationships between sensory and instrumental measurement In comparison with instrumental methods, sensory evaluations provide a more immediate measure of human perception (Ross, 2009). However, instrumental measurements are objective and, to some extent, considered to be more accurate than sensory analysis (Oraguzie et al., 2009; Zdunek, Cybulsk, et al., 2010; Zdunek, Konopacka, et al., 2010). Therefore, the importance of understanding the relationship between subjective and objective measurements has gained increasing popularity among researchers and industry. The sensory evaluation of food texture generally involves terms determined at initial contact (usually by hands), rst bite, after chewing and after swallowing (Foegeding, 2007). Based on oral processing considerations, the rst two having a minimal contribution from saliva and sensory perception of texture should be reasonably predicted by mechanical test (Foegeding et al., 2010), that has been testied by different researches: hand-evaluated sensory texture terms correlated very well with fundamental rheological properties of agarose gels (Barrangou et al., 2006); sensory crispiness or hardness often has good correlation with puncture (penetration) force or AE (Brookeld et al., 2011; Chaunier et al., 2005; Ioannides et al., 2007); high correlations of dried apple were observed during 3-point bending test (Marzec et al., 2010), etc. It was found that the general afrmation that in instrumental tests the closer the test speed to the mastication speed, the better, was not always true. This is particularly related to the current limitations of the standard available equipment and the limited force data sampling rate of the texture analyzer which make the measurements at higher speed less accurate (Varela et al., 2008). Provided the correct instrumental conditions are set, a valuable improvement in the prediction of sensory attributes by instrumental variables can be achieved (Greve et al., 2010). Texture is a multimodal sensory property and one mechanical test will most likely not cover all of the nuances of food texture that a human experiences when eating (Foegeding et al., 2011). Texture testing instruments can detect and quantify only certain physical parameters which then must be interpreted in terms of sensory perception
Relevant texture properties Table 4 Summary of the advantages and disadvantages of instrumental measurement approaches to food texture properties. Disadvantages Applicable foods
Linked with microstructural and molecular mechanisms Easy to perform; based on imitation of mastication (more information of texture); many choices of devices
Solid (e.g., biscuits, cornakes, potato crisps, apples)
More information (more imitative of sensory experiences); relatively cheap in operation Non-destructive; fast; relatively cheap, simple and energy saving Combination of mechanical and acoustic Ultrasound
Fundamental rheological information connecting with structural features Available guidelines; easy to perform; low cost
Three-point bending, and single-edge notch bend (SENB) test Compression (e.g., texture prole analysis test, TPA)
Puncture (e.g., Magness-Taylor test)
Warner-Bratzler shear force test
Instrumental approaches
Stress relaxation
Optical
Non-destructive; rapid; a large amount of information; suitable for online measurement;
Easy to perform; many choice of devices (some are portable)
Advantages
831
(Szczesniak, 2002), while a mismatch in vocabulary between sensory scientists and instrument operators would be another common problem (James et al., 2011). Combining instrumental techniques with sensory evaluations may increase the efciency and accuracy of food texture measurement. 5. Standardization of texture measurement A wide range of test methods and related instrumentation has been applied in food texture measurement and analysis. While the availability of this array of equipment with different levels of sophistication and cost has enabled researchers and industry to develop better understanding of food texture for product development, quality management and process control, comparability of texture evaluation results is often difcult. Descriptive sensory analysis of texture is usually considered the gold standard for the objective and analytical measurements of food texture properties (Foegeding et al., 2011; Ross, 2009). For sensory texture measurement and analysis, the selection of panelists, scales and scale usage, and training are critical (Foegeding et al., 2003). Some guidelines have been developed and widely applied for testing texture properties of specic types of food. For instance, Patience et al. (2009) screened and selected panelists to evaluate pork quality following procedures of the American Meat Science Association (AMSA, 1995). In their sensory analysis of strawberry, Gunness, Kravchuk, Nottingham, D'Arcy, and Gidley (2009) adopted the ISO sensory standards (ISO Standard 8586-1, 1993) for training of panelists and taste procedure. Sasaki et al. (2010) characterized the texture properties of three beef muscles cooked to four end-point temperatures using ISO5492:1992 texture terms for evaluating beef texture. While these industrybased and global test guidelines provide some level of uniformity in texture measurement analysis, they often do not address important issues such as standardization of food sample preparation and handling before and during analysis. For example, it is well known that cooking methods and cooking conditions (heating rate and end-point temperature at the thermal center) affect the texture of prepared food (Petracci & Baza, 2009). Therefore, future efforts should be made to standardize these aspects of food texture measurement and analysis. There are several guides widely used in instrumental measurement of food texture. For instance, guidelines for instrumental analysis of cheese texture have been reported in Bulletin 268 of the International Dairy Federation (1991), in which, four rheological parameters (rmness, fracturability, elasticity and cohesiveness) were precisely dened. Meat tenderness is usually assessed by the WBSF test, for which the American Meat Science Association (AMSA, 1995) provides recommendations on instrument selection, sample preparation and testing procedure. In horticultural foods such as fruit, esh rmness measurement is traditionally carried out following the Magness-Taylor procedure, using either a texture analyzer or hand-held penetrometer to measure maximum penetration force and other related parameters (Molina-Delgado et al., 2009). Overall, these guidelines or traditional methods of testing texture in foods are very useful, especially for industrial applications. Nevertheless, the vast diversity of food products creates a challenge in identifying and selecting the appropriate instrumental method for characterizing textural properties, and in addition, information provided by instruments still may or may not relate to what is perceived by a person actually chewing the product (Hollender & Kropf, 1994). This creates further challenges and new opportunities for multi-disciplinary approaches and collaboration among scientists and engineers working in food scientic research. 6. Concluding remarks Food texture is one of the most widely measured quality attributes during postharvest handling, processing, and consumption. Given the subjectivity in human perception of food texture, texture measurement
remains a complex exercise and thus presents both a charm and challenge for researchers and industry practitioners. A survey of the ScienceDirect data base showed that the number of publications with food texture has increased by more than 200% during the past decade (2002 to 2012). The nal perception of texture should be based on human sensory evaluation, while, instrumental measurement of food texture, which includes destructive and non-destructive methods, is also widely used in research and industry. Recent advances in information and communication technology offer the potential for innovative technologies for non-destructive food texture measurement based on acoustic and optical approaches that provide real-time or on-line texture measurement for fresh and processed foods. However, there is still currently a lack of international standards for food texture measurement, which often makes it difcult to trace and compare research results even in the same food product and using the same instrument. Since texture is a combined measure of subjective feel to the objective measure, the relationships between physical properties of food and human sensations deserve the attention of researchers. At the same time, sensory perception of food texture is too complicated to be described by only one or two physical properties. Multidisciplinary collaboration among food engineers and technologists, consumer scientists and other professionals is necessary for the handling and design of food products highly sought after by the consumer.
Acknowledgments This work is based upon research supported by Senior Visiting Scholar Program of the Shanghai Educational Committee, China and the South African Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of Science and Technology and National Research Foundation. Prof. Opara acknowledges the South Africa/Flanders Research Cooperation Programme (Project UID: 73936) and the South African Perishable Products Export Control Board (PPECB) for nancial support.
References
Agbisit, R., Alavi, S., Cheng, E. Z., Herald, T., & Trater, A. (2007). Relationships between microstructure and mechanical properties of cellular cornstarch extrudates. Journal of Texture Studies, 38, 199219. Akhtar, M., Murray, B. S., & Dickinson, E. (2006). Perception of creaminess of model oil-in-water dairy emulsions: Inuence of the shear-thinning nature of a viscositycontrolling hydrocolloid. Food Hydrocolloids, 20, 839847. Akhtar, M., Stenzel, J., Murray, B. S., & Dickinson, E. (2005). Factors affecting the perception of creaminess of oil-in-water emulsions. Food Hydrocolloids, 19, 521526. Albert, A., Varela, P., Salvador, A., Hough, G., & Fiszman, S. (2011). Overcoming the issues in the sensory description of hot served food with a complex texture. Application of QDA, ash proling and projective mapping using panels with different degrees of training. Food Quality and Preference, 22, 463473. Ali, A., Selamat, J., Man, Y. B. C., & Suria, A. M. (2001). Effect of storage temperature on texture, polymorphic structure, bloom formation and sensory attributes of lled dark chocolate. Food Chemistry, 72, 491497. Al-Said, F. A., Opara, L. U., & Al-Yahyai, R. A. (2009). Physico-chemical and textural quality attributes of pomegranate cultivars (Punica granatum L.) grown in the Sultanate of Oman. Journal of Food Engineering, 90, 129134. AMSA (1995). Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation and instrumental tenderness measurements of fresh meat. Chicago, Il, USA: American Meat Science Association. Andrs, S. C., Zaritzky, N. E., & Califano, A. N. (2008). Stress relaxation characteristics of low-fat chicken sausages made in Argentina. Meat Science, 79(3), 589594. Arana, I., Jaren, C., & Arazuri, S. (2004). Apple mealiness detection by non-destructive mechanical impact. Journal of Food Engineering, 62, 399408. Arimi, J. M., Duggan, E., O'Sullivan, M., Lyng, J. G., & O'Riordan, E. D. (2010a). Effect of water activity on the crispiness of a biscuit (Crackerbread): Mechanical and acoustic evaluation. Food Research International, 43, 16501655. Arimi, J. M., Duggan, E., O'Sullivan, M., Lyng, J. G., & O'Riordan, E. D. (2010b). Development of an acoustic measurement system for analyzing crispiness during mechanical and sensory testing. Journal of Texture Studies, 41, 320340. Awad, T. S., Moharram, H. A., Shaltout, O. E., Asker, D., & Youssef, M. M. (2012). Applications of ultrasound in analysis, processing and quality control of food: A review. Food Research International, 48, 410427. Brcenas, P.Elortondo, Fr. J. P., Albisu, M., Mge, J., Roseiro, L. B., Scintu, M. F., et al. (2007). An international ring trial for the sensory evaluation of raw ewes' milk cheese texture. International Dairy Journal, 17, 11391147.
832
L. Chen, U.L. Opara / Food Research International 51 (2013) 823835 Dairou, V., & Siefffermann, J. -M. (2002). A comparison of 14 jams characterized by conventional prole and quick original method, the ash prole. Journal of Food Science, 67, 823834. Damez, J. -L., & Clerjon, S. (2008). Meat quality assessment using biophysical methods related to meat structure. Meat Science, 80, 132149. Dan, H., Azuma, T., & Kohyama, K. (2007). Characterization of spatiotemporal stress distribution during food fracture by image texture analysis methods. Journal of Food Engineering, 81, 429436. Dan, H., & Kohyama, K. (2007). Interactive relationship between the mechanical properties of food and the human response during the rst bite. Archives of Oral Biology, 52, 455464. de Huidobro, F. R., Miguel, E., Blzquez, B., & Onega, E. (2005). A comparison between two methods (Warner-Bratzler and texture prole analysis) for testing either raw meat or cooked meat. Meat Science, 69, 527536. de Liz Pocztaruk, R., Abbink, J. H., de Wijk, R. A., da Fontoura Frasca, L. C., et al. (2011). The inuence of auditory and visual information on the perception of crispy food. Food Quality and Preference, 22, 404411. De Roeck, A., Mols, J., Duvetter, T., Van Loey, A., & Hendrickx, M. (2010). Carrot texture degradation kinetics and pectin changes during thermal versus high-pressure/ high-temperature processing: A comparative study. Food Chemistry, 120, 11041112. de Wijk, R. A., Engelena, L., & Prinz, J. F. (2003). The role of intra-oral manipulation in the perception of sensory attributes. Appetite, 40, 17. de Wijk, R. A., Janssen, A. M., & Prinz, J. F. (2011). Oral movements and the perception of semi-solid foods. Physiology & Behavior, 104, 423428. de Wijk, R. A., Polet, I. A., Bult, J. H. F., & Prinz, J. F. (2008). Vibromyography of oral processing varies with type of semi-solid food and with sensory judgements. Physiology & Behavior, 95, 521526. de Wijk, R. A., Wulfert, F., & Prinz, J. F. (2006). Oral processing assessed by M-mode ultrasound imaging varies with food attribute. Physiology & Behavior, 89, 1521. Del Nobile, M. A., Chillo, S., Mentana, A., & Baiano, A. (2007). Use of the generalized Maxwell model for describing the stress relaxation behavior of solid-like foods. Journal of Food Engineering, 78, 978983. Derington, A. J., Brooks, J. C., Garmyn, A. J., Thompson, L. D., Wester, D. B., & Miller, M. F. (2011). Relationships of slice shear force and Warner-Bratzler shear force of beef strip loin steaks as related to the tenderness gradient of the strip loin. Meat Science, 88, 203208. Destefanis, G., Brugiapaglia, A., Barge, M. T., & Dal Molin, E. (2008). Relationship between beef consumer tenderness perception and Warner-Bratzler shear force. Meat Science, 78(3), 153156. Dijksterhuis, G., Luyten, H., de Wijk, R., & Mojet, J. (2007). A new sensory vocabulary for crisp and crunchy dry model foods. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 3750. Dowlati, M., Mohtasebi, S. S., & de la Guardia, M. (2012). Application of machine-vision techniques to sh-quality assessment. Trends in Analytical Chemistry , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2012.07.011. Drake, M. A. (2007). Invited review: Sensory analysis of dairy foods. Journal of Dairy Science, 90, 49254937. Emadi, B., Kosse, V., & Yarlagadda, P. K. (2005). Mechanical properties of pumpkin. International Journal of Food Properties, 8, 277287. Farag, K. W., Lyng, J. G., Morgan, D. J., & Cronin, D. A. (2009). Effect of low temperatures (18 to +5 degrees C) on the texture of beef lean. Meat Science, 81, 249254. Farahnaky, A., Azizi, R., & Gavahian, M. (2012). Accelerated texture softening of some root vegetables by ohmic heating. Journal of Food Engineering , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2012.05.039. Farris, S., Gobbi, S., Torreggiani, D., & Piergiovanni, L. (2008). Assessment of two different rapid compression tests for the evaluation of texture differences in osmoair-dried apple rings. Journal of Food Engineering, 88, 484491. Foegeding, E. A. (2007). Rheology and sensory texture of biopolymer gels. Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science, 12, 242250. Foegeding, E. A., Brown, J., Drake, M. A., & Daubert, C. R. (2003). Sensory and mechanical aspects of cheese texture. International Dairy Journal, 13, 585591. Foegeding, E. A., akr, E., & Ko, H. (2010). Using dairy ingredients to alter texture of foods: Implications based on oral processing considerations. International Dairy Journal, 20, 562570. Foegeding, E. A., Daubert, C. R., Drake, M. A., Essick, G., Trulsson, M., Vinyard, C. J., et al. (2011). A comprehensive approach to understanding textural properties of semiand soft-solid foods. Journal of Texture Studies, 42, 103129. Foucquier, J., Chantoiseau, E., Le Feunteun, S., Flick, D., Gaucel, S., & Perrot, N. (2012). Toward an integrated modeling of the dairy product transformations, a review of the existing mathematical models. Food Hydrocolloids, 27, 113. Funami, T. (2011). Next target for food hydrocolloid studies: Texture design of foods using hydrocolloid technology. Food Hydrocolloids, 25, 19041914. Gamble, J., Harker, F. R., Jaeger, S. R., White, A., Bava, C., Beresford, M., et al. (2010). The impact of dry matter, ripeness and internal defects on consumer perceptions of avocado quality and intentions to purchase. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 57, 3543. Gins, R., Valdimarsdottir, T., Sveinsdottir, K., & Thorarensen, H. (2004). Effects of rearing temperature and strain on sensory characteristics, texture, colour and fat of Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpines). Food Quality and Preference, 15, 177185. Girard, I., Bruce, H. L., Basarab, J. A., Larsen, I. L., & Aalhus, J. L. (2012). Contribution of myobrillar and connective tissue components to the Warner-Bratzler shear force of cooked beef. Meat Science, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.06.037. Gmez, A. H., Wang, J., Hu, G. X., & Pereira, A. G. (2007). Discrimination of storage shelf-life for mandarin by electronic nose technique. LWT- Food Science and Technology, 40, 681689. Gmez, A. H., Wang, J., & Pereira, A. G. (2005). Impulse response of pear fruit and its relation to Magness-Taylor rmness during storage. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 35, 209215.
Barrangou, L. M., Drake, M., Daubert, C. R., & Foegeding, E. A. (2006). Textural properties of agarose gels. II. Relationships between rheological properties and sensory texture. Food Hydrocolloids, 20, 196203. Beattie, R. J., Bell, S. J., Farmer, L. J., Moss, B. W., & Desmond, P. D. (2004). Preliminary investigation of the application of Raman spectroscopy to the prediction of the sensory quality of beef silverside. Meat Science, 66, 903913. Bechar, A., Mizrach, A., Barreiro, P., & Landah, S. (2005). Determination of mealiness in apples using ultrasonic measurements. Biosystems Engineering, 91, 329334. Benedini, R., Parolari, G., Toscani, T., & Virgili, R. (2012). Sensory and texture properties of Italian typical dry-cured hams as related to maturation time and salt content. Meat Science, 90, 431437. Benedito, J., Carcel, J., Clemente, G., & Mulet, A. (2000a). Cheese maturity assessment using ultrasonics. Journal of Dairy Science, 83, 248254. Benedito, J., Carcel, J. A., Gonzalez, R., & Mulet, A. (2002). Application of low intensity ultrasonics to cheese manufacturing processes. Ultrasonics, 40, 1923. Benedito, J., Carcel, J. A., Sanjuan, N., & Mulet, A. (2000b). Use of ultrasound to assess Cheddar cheese characteristics. Ultrasonics, 38, 727730. Benedito, J., Gonzalez, R., Rossello, C., & Mulet, A. (2000c). Instrumental and expert assessment of Mahon cheese texture. Journal of Food Science, 65, 11701174. Benedito, J., Simal, S., Clemente, G., & Mulet, A. (2006). Manchego cheese texture evaluation by ultrasonics and surface probes. International Dairy Journal, 16, 431438. Bhattacharya, S. (2010). Stress relaxation behaviour of moth bean our dough: Product characteristics and suitability of model. Journal of Food Engineering, 97, 539546. Blancher, G., Chollet, S., Kesteloot, R., Hoang, D. N., Cuvelier, G., & Sieffermann, J. -M. (2007). French and Vietnamese: How do they describe texture characteristics of the same food? A case study with jellies. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 560575. Bourne, M. C. (2002). Food texture and viscosity (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press. Brezmes, J., Fructuoso, M. L. L., Llobet, E., Vilanova, X., Recasens, I., Orts, J., et al. (2005). Evaluation of an electronic nose to assess fruit ripeness. IEEE Sensors Journal, 5, 97108. Brookeld, P. L., Nicoll, S., Gunson, F. A., Harker, F. R., & Wohlers, M. (2011). Sensory evaluation by small postharvest teams and the relationship with instrumental measurements of apple texture. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 59, 179186. Brown, J. A., Foegeding, E. A., Daubert, C. R., Drake, M. A., & Gumpertz, M. (2003). Relationships among rheological and sensorial properties of young cheeses. Journal of Dairy Science, 86, 30543067. Bruwer, M. -J., MacGregor, J. F., & Bourg, W. M., Jr. (2007). Fusion of sensory and mechanical testing data to dene measures of snack food texture. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 890900. Bureau, S., Ruiz, D., Reich, M., Gouble, B., Bertrand, D., Audergon, J. -M., et al. (2009). Rapid and non-destructive analysis of apricot fruit quality using FT-near-infrared spectroscopy. Food Chemistry, 113, 13231328. Cai, J. R., Chen, Q. S., Wan, X. M., & Zhao, J. W. (2011). Determination of total volatile basic nitrogen (TVB-N) content and Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF) in port using Fourier transform near infrared (FT-NIR). Food Chemistry, 126, 13541360. Caine, W. R., Aalhus, J. L., Best, D. R., Dugan, M. E. R., & Jeremiah, L. E. (2003). Relationship of texture prole analysis and Warner-Bratzler shearforce with sensory characteristics of beef rib steaks. Meat Science, 64, 333339. akr, E., Daubert, C. R., Drake, M. A., Vinyard, C. J., Essick, G., & Foegeding, E. A. (2012a). The effect of microstructure on the sensory perception and textural characteristics of whey protein/k-carrageenan mixed gels. Food Hydrocolloids, 26, 3343. akr, E., Vinyard, C. J., Essick, G., Daubert, C. R., Drake, M. A., & Foegeding, E. (2012b). Interrelations among physical characteristics, sensory perception and oral processing of protein-based soft-solid structures. Food Hydrocolloids, 29, 234245. Castro-Prada, E. M., Primp-Martin, C., Meinder, M. B. J., Hamer, R. J., & Van Vliet, T. (2009). Relationship between water activity, deformation speed, and crispness characterization. Journal of Texture Studies, 40, 127156. Chambers, D. H., Allison, A. -M. A., & Chambersiv, E. (2004). Training effects on performance of descriptive panelists. Journal of Sensory Studies, 19, 486499. Chaunier, L., Courcoux, P., Della Valle, G., & Lourdin, D. (2005). Physical and sensory evaluation of cornakes crispness. Journal of Texture Studies, 36, 93118. Chaunier, L., Della Valle, G., & Lourdin, D. (2007). Relationships between texture, mechanical properties and structure of cornakes. Food Research International, 40, 493503. Chen, J. S. (2009). Food oral processingA review. Food Hydrocolloids, 23, 125. Chen, J. S., Feng, M., Gonzalez, Y., & Pugnaloni, L. A. (2008). Application of probe tensile method for quantitative characterization of the stickiness of uid foods. Journal of Food Engineering, 87, 281290. Chen, J. S., Karlsson, C., & Povey, M. (2005). Acoustic envelope detector for crispness assessment of biscuits. Journal of Texture Studies, 36, 139156. Chen, J. S., & Stokes, J. R. (2012). Rheology and tribology: Two distinctive regimes of food texture sensation. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 25, 412. Chung, C., Degner, B., & McClements, D. J. (2012). Instrumental mastication assay for texture assessment of semi-solid foods: Combined cyclic squeezing ow and shear viscometry. Food Research International, 49, 161169. Civille, G. V., & Ofteda, l, K. N. (2012). Sensory evaluation techniques Make good for you taste good. Physiology & Behavior, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.04.015. Claus, J. R. (1995). Methods for the objective measurement of meat product texture. Reciprocal Meat Conference Proceedings, 48, 96100. Costa, F., Cappellin, L., Fontanari, M., Longhi, S., Guerra, W., Magnago, P., et al. (2012). Texture dynamics during postharvest cold storage ripening in apple (Malus domestica Borkh.). Postharvest Biology and Technology, 69, 5463. Costa, F., Cappellin, L., Longhi, S., Guerra, W., Magnago, P., Porro, D., et al. (2011). Assessment of apple (Malus domestica Borkh.) fruit texture by a combined acousticmechanical proling strategy. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 61, 2128. Cunha, C. R., Dias, A. I., & Viotto, W. H. (2010). Microstructure, texture, colour and sensory evaluation of a spreadable processed cheese analogue made with vegetable fat. Food Research International, 43, 723729.
L. Chen, U.L. Opara / Food Research International 51 (2013) 823835 Gregson, C. M. (2002). Evaluation of numerical algorithms for the changes in texture over time for instrumental measurement of bowl-life and ready-to-eat breakfast cereals. Journal of Texture Studies, 33, 505528. Greve, P., Lee, Y. S., Meullenet, J. F., & Kunz, B. (2010). Improving the prediction for sensory texture attributes for multicomponent snack bars by optimizing instrumental test conditions. Journal of Texture Studies, 41, 358380. Guessasma, S., Chaunier, L., Della Valle, G., & Lourdin, D. (2011). Mechanical modelling of cereal solid foods. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 22, 142153. Guin, R. P. F., & Barroca, M. J. (2012). Effect of drying treatments on texture and color of vegetables (pumpkin and green pepper). Food and Bioproducts Processing, 90, 5863. Gunness, P., Kravchuk, O., Nottingham, S. M., D'Arcy, B. R., & Gidley, M. J. (2009). Sensory analysis of individual strawberry fruit and comparison with instrumental analysis. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 52, 164172. Gupta, M., Bawa, A. S., & Abu-Ghannam, N. (2011). Effect of barley our and freezethaw cycles on textural nutritional and functional properties of cookies. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 89, 520527. Harker, F. R., Kupferman, E. M., Marin, A. B., Gunson, F. A., & Triggs, C. M. (2008). Eating quality standards for apples based on consumer preferences. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 50, 7078. Harker, F. R., Maindonald, J. H., & Jacson, P. J. (1996). Penetrometer measurement of apple and kiwifruit rmness: Operator and instrument differences. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 121, 927936. Harker, F. R., Maindonald, J., Murray, S. H., Gunson, F. A., Hallett, I. C., & Walker, S. B. (2002). Sensory interpretation of instrumental measurements 1: Texture of apple fruit. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 24, 225239. Harker, F. R., Redgwell, R. J., Hallett, I. C., Murray, S. H., & Carter, G. (2010). Texture of fresh fruit. Horticulture Reviews, 20, 121224. Harker, F. R., White, A., Gunson, F. A., Hallett, I. C., & De Silva, H. N. (2006). Instrumental measurement of apple texture: A comparison of the single-edge notched bend test and the penetrometer. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 39, 185192. Heenan, S. P., Dufour, J. P., Hamid, N., Harvey, W., & Delahunty, C. M. (2010). The inuence of ingredients and time from baking on sensory quality and consumer freshness perceptions in a baked model cake system. LWT- Food Science and Technology, 43, 10321041. Heenan, S. P., Hamid, N., Dufour, J. -P., Harvey, W., & Delahunty, C. M. (2009). Consumer freshness perceptions of breads, biscuits and cakes. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 380390. Herrero, A. M., & Careche, M. (2005). Stress-relaxation test to evaluate textural quality of frozen stored Cape hake (M. capensis and M. paradoxus). Food Research International, 38, 6976. Herrero-Langreo, A., Fernndez-Ahumada, E., Roger, J. -M., Palags, B., & Lle, L. (2012). Combination of optical and non-destructive mechanical techniques for the measurement of maturity in peach. Journal of Food Engineering, 108, 150157. Hollender, R., & Kropf, D. (1994). Descriptive analysis of meat texture. Reciprocal Meat Conference Proceedings, 47, 5354. Huang, M., & Lu, R. (2010). Apple mealiness detection using hyperspectral scattering technique. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 58, 168175. International Dairy Federation (1991). Rheological and fracture properties of cheese. IDF Bulletin, 268. Ioannides, Y., Howarth, M. S., Raithatha, C., Defernez, M., Kemsley, E. K., & Smith, A. C. (2007). Texture analysis of Red Delicious fruit: Towards multiple measurements on individual fruit. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 825833. Ioannides, Y., Seers, J., Defernez, M., Raithatha, C., Howarth, M. S., Smith, A., et al. (2009). Electromyography of the masticatory muscles can detect variation in the mechanical and sensory properties of apples. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 203215. ISO Standard 8586-1 (1993). Sensory analysis: General guide to selection, training and monitoring of panelists. I. Selected panelists in French Standard. Iwatani, S. -i, Yakushiji, H., Mitani, N., & Sakurai, N. (2011). Evaluation of grape esh texture by an acoustic vibration method. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 62, 305309. James, B., Young, A., Smith, B., Kim, E., Wilson, A., & Morgenstern, M. P. (2011). Texture changes in bolus to the point of swallow Fracture toughness and back extrusion to test start and end points. Procedia Food Science, 1, 632639. Janssen, A. M., Terpstra, M. E. J., De Wijk, R. A., & Prinz, J. F. (2007). Relations between rheological properties, saliva-induced structure breakdown and sensory texture attributes of custards. Journal of Texture Studies, 38, 4269. Jaworska, G., & Bernas, E. (2010). Effects of pre-treatment, freezing and frozen storage on the texture of Boletus edulis (Bull: Fr.) mushrooms. International Journal of Refrigeration, 33, 877885. Jiang, M. K., Wang, Y. F., van Santen, E., & Chappell, J. A. (2008). Evaluation of textural properties of channel catsh (Ictalurus punctatus Ranesque) llet with the natural contour method. LWT- Food Science and Technology, 41, 15481554. Kavdir, I., Lu, R., Ariana, D., & Ngouajio, M. (2007). Visible and near-infrared spectroscopy for nondestructive quality assessment of pickling cucumbers. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 44, 165174. Kealy, T. (2006). Application of liquid and solid rheological technologies to the textural characterisation of semi-solid foods. Food Research International, 39, 265276. Kim, E. H. -J., Corrigan, V. K., Wilson, A. J., Waters, I. R., Hedderley, D. I., & Morgenstern, M. P. (2012). Fundamental fracture properties associated with sensory hardness of brittle solid foods. Journal of Texture Studies, 43, 4962. Kim, K. -B., Lee, S., Kim, M. -S., & Cho, B. -K. (2009). Determination of apple rmness by nondestructive ultrasonic measurement. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 52, 4448. Kojima, T., Fjita, S., Tanaka, M., & Sirisomboon, P. (2004). Texture in food (1st ed.). Cambridge, England: Woodhead Publishing Limited. Konopacka, D., & Plocharski, W. J. (2004). Effect of storage conditions on the relationship between apple rmness and texture acceptability. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 32, 205211.
833
Lana, M. M., Tijskens, L. M. M., & van Kooten, O. (2005). Effects of storage temperature and fruit ripening on rmness of fresh cut tomatoes. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 35, 8795. Larsen, D., Quek, S. -Y., & Eyres, L. (2011). Evaluating instrumental colour and texture of thermally treated New Zealand King Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and their relation to sensory properties. LWT- Food Science and Technology, 44, 18141820. Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. H. (1998). Sensory evaluation of food: Principles and practices. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall. Le-Bail, A., Boumali, K., Jury, V., Ben-Aissa, F., & Zuniga, R. (2009). Impact of the baking kinetics on staling rate and mechanical properties of bread crumb and degassed bread crumb. Journal of Cereal Science, 50, 235240. Lee, S. J., & Kwon, Y. A. (2007). Study on fuzzy reasoning application for sensory evaluation of sausages. Food Control, 18, 811816. Lehman-Salada, L. (1996). Instrument and operator effects on apple rmness readings. HortScience, 31, 994997. Lenfant, F., Loret, C., Pineau, N., Hartmann, C., & Martin, N. (2009). Perception of oral food breakdown. The concept of sensory trajectory. Appetite, 52, 659667. Ltal, J., Jirk, D., uderlov, L., & Hjek, M. (2003). MRI texture analysis of MR images of apples during ripening and storage. Lebensmittel Wissenschaft und Technologie, 36, 719727. Li, M., Luo, L. J., Zhu, K. X., Guo, X. N., Peng, W., & Zhou, H. M. (2012). Effect of vacuum mixing on the quality characteristics of fresh noodles. Journal of Food Engineering, 110, 525531. Lorenzen, C. L., Calkins, C. R., Green, M. D., Miller, R. K., Morgan, J. B., & Wasser, B. E. (2010). Efcacy of performing Warner-Bratzler and slice shear force on the same beef steak following rapid cooking. Meat Science, 85, 792794. Lu, R. (2007). Nondestructive measurement of rmness and soluble solids content for apple fruit using hyperspectral scattering images. Sensing and Instrumentation for Food Quality and Safety, 1, 1927. Lu, R. F., & Peng, Y. K. (2006). Hyperspectral scattering for assessing peach fruit rmness. Biosystems Engineering, 93, 161171. Lu, R., & Tipper, N. C. (2009). A portable device for the bioyield detection to measure apple rmness. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 25, 517523. Lucas, P. W., Prinz, J. F., Agrawal, K. R., & Bruce, I. C. (2002). Food physics and oral physiology. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 203213. Marigheto, N., Venturi, L., & Hills, B. (2008). Two-dimensional NMR relaxation studies of apple quality. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 48, 331340. Maruyama, T. T., Arce, A. I. C., Ribeiro, L. P., & Costa, E. J. X. (2008). Time-frequency analysis of acoustic noise produced by breaking of crisp biscuits. Journal of Food Engineering, 86, 100104. Marzec, A., Kowalska, H., & Zadrozna, M. (2010). Analysis of instrumental and sensory texture attributes of microwave-convective dried apples. Journal of Texture Studies, 41, 417439. Mendoza, F., Lu, R., & Cen, H. (2012). Comparison and fusion of four nondestructive sensors for predicting apple fruit rmness and soluble solids content. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 73, 8998. Mizrach, A. (2008). Ultrasonic technology for quality evaluation of fresh fruit and vegetables in pre- and postharvest processes. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 48, 315330. Mizrach, A., Bechar, A., Grinshpon, Y., Hofman, A., Egozi, H., & Rosenfeld, L. (2003). Ultrasonic mealiness classication of apples. Transactions of ASAE, 46, 397400. Mizrach, A., Flitsanov, U., Akerman, M., & Zauberman, G. (2000). Monitoring avocado softening in low-temperature storage using ultrasonic measurements. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 26, 199207. Molina-Delgado, D., Alegre, S., Barreiro, P., Valero, C., Ruiz-Altisent, M., & Recasens, I. (2009). Addressing potential sources of variation in several non-destructive techniques for measuring rmness in apples. Biosystems Engineering, 104, 3346. Moreira, R., Chenlo, F., Chaguri, L., & Fernandes, C. (2008). Water absorption, texture, and color kinetics of air-dried chestnuts during rehydration. Journal of Food Engineering, 86, 584594. Morris, C., & Morris, G. A. (2012). The effect of inulin and fructo-oligosaccharide supplementation on the textural, rheological and sensory properties of bread and their role in weight management: A review. Food Chemistry, 133, 237248. Moshou, D., Wahlen, S., Strasser, R., Schenk, A., & Ramon, H. (2003). Apple mealiness detection using uorescence and self-organising maps. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 40, 103114. Muramatsu, N., Sakurai, N., Yamamoto, R., Nevins, D. J., Takahara, T., & Ogata, T. (1997). Comparison of a non-destructive acoustic method with an intrusive method for rmness measurement of kiwifruit. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 12, 221228. Nguyen, L. T., Tay, A., Balasubramaniam, V. M., Legan, J. D., Turek, E. J., & Gupta, R. (2010). Evaluating the impact of thermal and pressure treatment in preserving textural quality of selected foods. LWT- Food Science and Technology, 43, 525534. Nicola, B. M., Verlinden, B. E., Desmet, M., Saevels, S., Saeys, W., Theron, K., et al. (2007). Time-resolved and continuous wave NIR reectance spectroscopy to predict soluble solids content and rmness of pear. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 47, 6874. Oliveira, A. C. M., O'Keefe, S. F., & Balaban, M. O. (2004). Video analysis to monitor rigor mortis in cultured Gulf of Mexico sturgeon (Ancipenser osyrynchus desotoi). Journal of Food Science, 69, E392E397. Opara, L. U., Studman, C. J., & Banks, N. H. (1997). Physico-mechanical properties of Gala apples and stem-end splitting as inuenced by orchard management practices and harvest date. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 68, 139146. Oraguzie, N., Alspach, P., Volz, R., Whitworth, C., Ranatunga, C., Weskett, R., et al. (2009). Postharvest assessment of fruit quality parameters in apple using both instruments and an expert panel. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 52, 279287. Pags, J. (2005). Collection and analysis of perceived product inter-distances using multiple factor analysis: Application to the study of 10 white wines from the Loire valley. Food Quality and Preference, 16, 642649.
834
L. Chen, U.L. Opara / Food Research International 51 (2013) 823835 Sila, D. N., Smout, C., Vu, T. S., & Hendrickx, M. E. (2004). Effects of high-pressure pretreatment and calcium soaking on the texture degradation kinetics of carrots during thermal processing. Journal of Food Science, 69, E205E211. Sirisomboon, P., & Pornchaloempong, P. (2011). Instrumental textural properties of mango (cv Nam Doc Mai) at commercial harvesting time. International Journal of Food Properties, 14, 441449. Sirisomboon, P., Tanaka, M., & Kojima, T. (2012). Evaluation of tomato textural mechanical properties. Journal of Food Engineering, 111, 618624. Sirisomboon, P., Tanaka, M., Kojima, T., & Williams, P. (2012). Nondestructive estimation of maturity and textural properties on tomato 'Momotaro' by infrared spectroscopy. Journal of Food Engineering, 112, 218226. Studman, C. J., & Yuwana (1992). Twist test for measuring fruit rmness. Journal of Texture Studies, 23, 211227. Subedi, P. P., & Walsh, K. B. (2009). Non-invasive techniques for measurement of fresh fruit rmness. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 51, 297304. Sudha, M. L., Srivastava, A. K., Vetrimani, R., & Leelavathi, K. (2007). Fat replacement in soft dough biscuits: Its implications on dough rheology and biscuit quality. Journal of Food Engineering, 80, 922930. Svanberg, L., Ahrne, L., Loren, N., & Windhab, E. (2012). A method to assess changes in mechanical properties of chocolate confectionery systems subjected to moisture and fat migration during storage. Journal of Texture Studies, 43, 106114. Svanberg, L., Ahrne, L., Loren, N., & Windhab, E. (2013). Impact of pre-crystallization process on structure and product properties in dark chocolate. Journal of Food Engineering, 114, 9098. Szczesniak, A. S. (2002). Texture is a sensory property. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 215225. Takahashi, T., Hayakawa, F., Kumagai, M., Akiyama, Y., & Kohyama, K. (2009). Relations among mechanical properties, human bite parameters, and ease of chewing of solid foods with various textures. Journal of Food Engineering, 95, 400409. Taniwaki, M., Hanada, T., & Sakurai, N. (2006). Device for acoustic measurement of food texture using a piezoelectric sensor. Food Research International, 39, 10991105. Taniwaki, M., Hanada, T., & Sakurai, N. (2009a). Postharvest quality evaluation of Fuyu and Taishuu persimmons using a nondestructive vibrational method and an acoustic vibration technique. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 51, 8085. Taniwaki, M., Hanada, T., Tohro, M., & Sakurai, N. (2009b). Non-destructive determination of the optimum eating ripeness of pears and their texture measurements using acoustical vibration techniques. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 51, 305310. Taniwaki, M., & Kohyama, K. (2012). Mechanical and acoustic evaluation of potato chip crispness using a versatile texture analyzer. Journal of Food Engineering, 112, 268273. Taniwaki, M., Sakura, N., & Kato, H. (2010). Texture measurement of potato chips using a novel analysis technique for acoustic vibration measurements. Food Research International, 43, 814818. Taniwaki, M., & Sakurai, N. (2008). Texture measurement of cabbages using an acoustical vibration method. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 50, 176181. Taniwaki, M., Takahashi, M., Sakurai, N., Takada, A., & Nagata, M. (2009c). Effects of harvest time and low temperature storage on the texture of cabbage leaves. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 54, 106110. Terasaki, S., Sakurai, N., Zebrowski, J., Murayama, H., Yamamoto, R., & Nevins, D. J. (2006). Laser Doppler vibrometer analysis of changes in elastic properties of ripening La France pear after postharvest storage. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 42, 198207. Tijskens, L. M. M., Dos-Santos, N., Jowkar, M. M., Obando-Ulloa, J. M., Moreno, E., Schouten, R. E., et al. (2009). Postharvest rmness behavior of near-isogenic lines of melon. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 51, 320326. Tijskens, L. M. M., Zerbini, P. E., Schouten, R. E., Vanoli, M., Jacob, S., Grassi, M., et al. (2007). Assessing harvest maturity in nectarines. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 45, 204213. Toivonen, P. M. A., & Brummell, D. A. (2008). Biochemical bases of appearance and texture changes in fresh-cut fruit and vegetables. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 48, 114. Troncoso, E., & Pedreschi, F. (2007). Modeling of textural changes during drying of potato slices. Journal of Food Engineering, 82, 577584. Tsukakoshi, Y., Naito, S., & Ishida (2007). Probabilistic characteristics of stress changes. Journal of Texture Studies, 38, 220235. Valente, M., Leardi, R., Self, G., Luciano, G., & Pain, J. P. (2009). Multivariate calibration of mango rmness using vis/NIR spectroscopy and acoustic impulse method. Journal of Food Engineering, 94, 713. Valero, C., Ruiz-Altisent, M., Cubeddu, R., Pifferi, A., Taroni, P., Torricelli, A., et al. (2004). Selection models for the internal quality of fruit, based on time domain laser reectance spectroscopy. Biosystems Engineering, 88, 313323. van Vliet, T., & Primo-Martn, C. (2011). Interplay between product characteristics, oral physiology and texture perception of cellular brittle foods. Journal of Texture Studies, 42, 8294. van Vliet, T., van Aken, G. A., de Jongh, H. H. J., & Hamer, R. J. (2009). Colloidal aspects of texture perception. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, 150, 2740. Varela, P., & Ares, G. (2012). Sensory proling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food Research International, 48, 893908. Varela, P., Salvador, A., & Fiszman, S. M. (2008). On the assessment of fracture in brittle foods: The case of roasted almonds. Food Research International, 41, 544551. Varela, P., Salvador, A., & Fiszman, S. (2009). On the assessment of fracture in brittle foods II. Biting or chewing? Food Research International, 42, 14681474. Voges, K. L., Mason, C. L., Brooks, J. C., Delmore, R. J., Grifn, D. B., Hale, D. S., et al. (2007). National beef tenderness survey 2006: Assessment of Warner-Bratzler shear and sensory panel ratings for beef from US retail and food service establishments. Meat Science, 77, 357364.
Patience, J. F., Shand, P., Pietrasik, Z., Merrill, J., Vessie, G., Ross, K. A., et al. (2009). The effect of ractopamine supplementation at 5 ppm of swine nishing diets on growth performance, carcass composition and ultimate pork quality. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 89, 5366. Pedreschia, F., & Moyano, P. (2005). Effect of pre-drying on texture and oil uptake of potato chips. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 38, 599604. Peleg, M. (2006). On fundamental issues in texture evaluation and texturizationA view. Food Hydrocolloids, 20, 405414. Peng, Y., & Lu, R. F. (2008). Analysis of spatially resolved hyperspectral scattering images for assessing apple fruit rmness and soluble solids content. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 48, 5262. Pereira, R., Matia-Merinoa, L., Jones, V., & Singh, H. (2006). Inuence of fat on the perceived texture of set acid milk gels: A sensory perspective. Food Hydrocolloids, 20, 305313. Petracci, M., & Baza, E. (2009). Harmonization of methodology of assessment of poultry meat quality features. WPSA Working Group 5 Poultry Meat, 118. Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2012). The inuence of the feel of product packaging on the perception of the oralsomatosensory texture of food. Food Quality and Preference, 26, 6773. Polaki, A., Xasapis, P., Fasseas, C., Yanniotis, S., & Mandala, I. (2010). Fiber and hydrocolloid content affect the microstructural and sensory characteristics of fresh and frozen stored bread. Journal of Food Engineering, 97, 17. Primo-Martn, C., Castro-Prada, E. M., Meinders, M. B. J., Vereijken, P. F. G., & van Vliet, T. (2008). Effect of structure in the sensory characterization of the crispness of toasted rusk roll. Food Research International, 41, 480486. Qing, Z. S., Ji, B. P., & Zude, M. (2008). Non-destructive analyses of apple quality parameters by means of laser-induced light backscattering imaging. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 48, 215222. Ragni, L., Berardinelli, A., & Guarnieri, A. (2010). Impact device for measuring the esh rmness of kiwifruits. Journal of Food Engineering, 96, 591597. Ragni, L., Cevoli, C., Berardinelli, A., & Silaghi, F. A. (2012). Non-destructive internal quality assessment of Hayward kiwifruit by waveguide spectroscopy. Journal of Food Engineering, 109, 3237. Rizzolo, A., Vanoli, M., Zerbini, P. E., Jacob, S., Torricelli, A., Spinelli, L., et al. (2009). Prediction ability of rmness decay models of nectarines based on the biological shift factor measured by time-resolved reectance spectroscopy. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 54, 131140. Rogers, N. R., Drake, M. A., Daubert, C. R., McMahon, D. J., Bletsch, T. K., & Foegeding, E. A. (2009). The effect of aging on low-fat, reduced-fat, and full-fat Cheddar cheese texture. Journal of Dairy Science, 92, 47564772. Rojo, F. J., & Vincent, J. F. V. (2009). Objective and subjective measurement of the crispness of crisps from four potato varieties. Engineering Failure Analysis, 16, 26982704. Rolle, L., Siret, R., Ro Segade, S., Maury, C., Gerbi, V., & Jourjon, F. (2012). Instrumental texture analysis parameters as markers of table-grape and winegrape quality: A review. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 63, 1128. Ross, C. F. (2009). Sensory science at the human-machine interface. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 20, 6372. Ross, C. F., Chauvin, M. A., & Whiting, M. (2009). Firmness evaluation of sweet cherries by a trained and consumer sensory panel. Journal of Texture Studies, 40, 554570. Ruiz-Altisent, M., Lle, L., & Riquelme, F. (2006). Instrumental quality assessment of peaches: Fusion of optical and mechanical parameters. Journal of Food Engineering, 74, 490499. Ruiz-Altisent, M., Ruiz-Garcia, L., Moreda, G. P., Lu, R. F., Hernandez-Sanchez, N., Correa, E. C., et al. (2010). Sensors for product characterization and quality of specialty cropsA review. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 74, 176194. Saeleaw, M., Drrschmid, K., & Schleining, G. (2012). The effect of extrusion conditions on mechanical-sound and sensory evaluation of rye expanded snack. Journal of Food Engineering, 110, 532540. Saeleaw, M., & Schleining, G. (2011a). Effect of frying parameters on crispiness and sound emission of cassava crackers. Journal of Food Engineering, 103, 229236. Saeleaw, M., & Schleining, G. (2011b). A review: Crispness in dry foods and quality measurements based on acoustic-mechanical destructive techniques. Journal of Food Engineering, 105, 387399. Sakurai, N., Iwatani, S., Terasaki, S., & Yamamoto, R. (2005a). Texture evaluation of cucumber by a new acoustic vibration method. Journal of the Japanese Society for Horticultural Science, 74, 3135. Sakurai, N., Iwatani, S., Terasaki, S., & Yamamoto, R. (2005b). Evaluation of Fuyu persimmon texture by a new parameter, sharpness index. Journal of the Japanese Society for Horticultural Science, 74, 150158. Salvador, A., Varela, P., Sanz, T., & Fiszman, S. M. (2009). Understanding potato chips crispy texture by simultaneous fracture and acoustic measurements, and sensory analysis. LWT- Food Science and Technology, 42, 763767. Sanz, T., Primo-Martn, C., & van Vliet, T. (2007). Characterization of crispness of French fries by fracture and acoustic measurements, effect of pre-frying and nal frying times. Food Research International, 40, 6370. Sasaki, K., Motoyama, M., Yasuda, J., Yamamoto, T., Oe, M., Narita, T., et al. (2010). Beef texture characterization using internationally established texture vocabularies in ISO5492:1992: Differences among four different end-point temperatures in three muscles of Holstein steers. Meat Science, 86, 422429. Sasikala, V. B., Ravi, R., & Narasimha, H. V. (2011). Textural changes of green gram (Phaseolus aureus) and horse gram (Dolichos biorus) as affected by soaking and cooking. Journal of Texture Studies, 42, 1019. Schouten, R. E., Natalini, A., Tijskens, L. M. M., Woltering, E. J., & van Kooten, O. (2010). Modelling the rmness behavior of cut tomatoes. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 57, 4451. Sila, D. N., Duvetter, T., De Roeck, A., Verlent, I., Smout, C., Moates, G. K., et al. (2008). Texture changes of processed fruits and vegetables: potential use of high-pressure processing. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19, 309319.
L. Chen, U.L. Opara / Food Research International 51 (2013) 823835 Wang, R., Zhou, W., & Isabelle, M. (2007). Comparison study of the effect of green tea extract (GTE) on the quality of bread by instrumental analysis and sensory evaluation. Food Research International, 40, 470479. Whetstine, M. E. C., Luck, P. J., Drake, M. A., Foegeding, E. A., Gerard, P. D., & Barbano, D. M. (2007). Characterization of avor and texture development within large (291 kg) blocks of Cheddar cheese. Journal of Dairy Science, 90, 30913109. White, A., De Silva, H. N., Requejo-Tapia, C., & Harker, F. R. (2005). Evaluation of softening characteristics of fruit from 14 species of Actinidia. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 35, 143151. Yancey, J. W. S., Apple, J. K., Meullenet, J. -F., & Sawyer, J. T. (2010). Consumer responses for tenderness and overall impression can be predicted by visible and near-infrared spectroscopy, Meullenet-Owens razor shear, and Warner-Bratzler shear force. Meat Science, 85, 487492. Zdunek, A., & Bednarczyk, J. (2006). Effect of mannitol treatment on ultrasound emission during texture prole analysis of potato and apple tissue. Journal of Texture Studies, 37, 339359. Zdunek, A., Cybulsk, J., Konopacka, D., & Rutkowski, K. (2010a). New contact acoustic emission detector for texture evaluation of apples. Journal of Food Engineering, 99, 8391.
835
Zdunek, A., Cybulska, J., Konopacka, D., & Rutkowski, K. (2011). Evaluation of apple texture with contact acoustic emission detector: A study on performance of calibration models. Journal of Food Engineering, 106, 8087. Zdunek, A., Konopacka, D., & Jesionkowska, K. (2010b). Crispness and crunchiness judgment of apples based on contact acoustic emission. Journal of Texture Studies, 41, 7591. Zhang, H. M., Wang, J., & Ye, S. (2008a). Prediction of soluble content, rmness and pH of pear by signals of electronic nose sensors. Analytica Chimica Acta, 606, 112118. Zhang, H. M., Wang, J., & Ye, S. (2008b). Predictions of acidity, soluble solids and rmness of pear using electronic nose technique. Journal of Food Engineering, 86, 370378. Zhou, R., & Li, Y. (2007). Texture analysis of MR image for predicting the rmness of Huanghua pears (Pyrus pyrifolia Nakai, cv. Huanghua) during storage using an articial neural network. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 25, 727732. Zude, M., Herold, B., Roger, J. -M., Bellon-Maurel, V., & Landahl, S. (2006). Non-destructive tests on the prediction of apple fruit esh rmness and soluble solids content on tree and in shelf life. Journal of Food Engineering, 77, 254260.

1 s2.0 S0963996913000732 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0963996913000732 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Food Research International 51 (2013) 823835

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Food Research International

Texture measurement approaches in fresh and processed foods A review

L. Chen, U.L. Opara / Food Research International 51 (2013) 823835

828 828 829 830 831 831 831 831

2455 2469 2357 2231 2234 2035 2035

L. Chen, U.L. Opara / Food Research International 51 (2013) 823835

L. Chen, U.L. Opara / Food Research International 51 (2013) 823835

L. Chen, U.L. Opara / Food Research International 51 (2013) 823835

L. Chen, U.L. Opara / Food Research International 51 (2013) 823835

Solid (e.g., biscuits, cornakes, potato crisps, apples)

Puncture (e.g., Magness-Taylor test)

Warner-Bratzler shear force test

Non-destructive; rapid; a large amount of information; suitable for online measurement;

Easy to perform; many choice of devices (some are portable)

L. Chen, U.L. Opara / Food Research International 51 (2013) 823835

You might also like