Consumer preference and physiochemical analyses of fresh strawberries from ten cultivars

Figures & data

Table 1. Strawberry sensory attributes, descriptions, and reference standards developed by trained panelists through descriptive analysis

		Reference points (0–100)
Attribute	Description	0	100
Appearance
Size of fruit	Apparent size of the strawberry	Not acceptable	Acceptable
Visual freshness	Degree of perceived freshness of the whole strawberry	Old	Fresh
Freshness of calyx	Degree of perceived freshness of the calyx	Old	Fresh
Glossiness of surface	Amount of apparent gloss on the strawberry exterior	Matte	Glossy
Color	Degree of the red color	White	Red
Uniformity of Color	Evenness of color on the strawberry exterior	Not even	Uniform
Density of seed	The degree of seed density	Low	High
Size of seed	Apparent size of the seeds	Small	Large
Aroma
Aroma before tasting	The intensity of overall aroma before tasting	None	Strong
Strawberry aroma	The aroma associated with fresh strawberries	None	Strong
Green aroma	The aroma associated with green cut vegetables	None	Strong
Fruity aroma	The aroma associated with any fruit	None	Strong
Fermented aroma	The aroma associated with ethanol or acetic acid	None	Strong
Flavor – taste
Sweetness	The taste of sweetness	None	Strong
Sourness	The taste of sourness	None	strong
Strawberry flavor	The flavor associated with fresh strawberries	Weak	Strong
Aftertaste	The intensity of residual taste in mouth after more than 20 s	Weak	Strong
Texture – mouth feel
Juiciness	The amount of juice released from the sample when bitten by the incisors	Dry	Juicy
Firmness	The force required to compress the sample between the tongue and palate	Soft	Firm
Fibrousness	The perception of connective tissues	None	Fibrous
Crunchiness (seeds)	The perception of seeds when eating the strawberry	None	Noticeable
Acceptability		Bad	Good
Overall appearance	The degree of acceptability how well the sample is liked in terms of overall eating quality and based on a universal scale of experiences with strawberries eaten	Bad	Good
Overall flavor		Bad	Good
Overall texture		Bad	Good
Overall quality		Bad	Good

Table 2. Sensory intensity scores and acceptability scores of appearance attributes before tasting fresh strawberries from 10 cultivars grown in Maryland

Cultivar	Visual freshness		Glossiness		Color uniformity		Color intensity		Calyx freshness		Fruit size		Seed density		Seed size
Albion	77	a	70	a	77	a	80	bc	77	a	77	a	54	abc	56	b
Allstar	73	a	65	a	74	a	73	cd	72	ab	78	a	58	ab	58	b
Chandler	73	a	69	a	83	a	84	ab	65	abc	69	abc	53	abc	49	bc
Earliglow	68	a	63	a	83	a	90	a	56	c	59	c	58	ab	39	d
Flavorfest	67	a	62	a	78	a	87	ab	71	abc	81	a	55	abc	79	a
Monterey	69	a	56	a	78	a	83	ab	73	ab	75	ab	50	bc	58	b
Portola	74	a	70	a	73	a	69	d	79	a	73	abc	46	c	54	b
Rutgers Scarlet	65	a	55	a	82	a	87	ab	58	bc	72	abc	62	a	59	b
San Andreas	66	a	63	a	77	a	83	ab	71	abc	73	abc	50	bc	57	b
Seascape	68	a	66	a	73	a	78	bcd	72	ab	62	bc	53	abc	42	cd
P value	0.348		0.3414		0.0663		<0.0001		<0.0001		<0.0001		0.0033		<0.0001

Different lower-case letters within a column indicate significant differences (α = 0.05, Tukey’s HSD).

Figure 1. Skin of a fresh strawberry compared with the skin of a strawberry that has dehydrated in storage, becomes wrinkled, and lost glossiness

Table 3. Instrumental exterior color values for 10 strawberry cultivars grown in Maryland

Cultivar	L* value		a* value		b* value		Chroma		Hue
Albion	31	cd	35	b	20	bcd	40	bc	30	def
Allstar	34	a	36	a	23	a	43	a	32	abc
Chandler	30	d	31	e	18	d	36	e	31	cdef
Earliglow	31	bcd	32	d	19	d	38	de	30	edf
Flavorfest	30	d	34	b	19	d	39	cd	29	ef
Monterey	30	d	33	bcd	18	d	38	d	28	f
Portola	33	ab	34	bc	22	ab	40	bc	33	ab
Rutgers Scarlet	31	cd	31	e	21	bc	37	de	34	a
San Andreas	32	bc	35	b	21	abc	41	b	31	bcde
Seascape	33	ab	32	cd	20	cd	38	d	31	bcd
P value	<0.0001		<0.0001		<0.0001		<0.0001		<0.0001

Different lower-case letters within a column indicate significant differences (α = 0.05, Tukey’s HSD).

Table 4. Size measurements from image analyses (n = 20), compared with sensory-panel acceptability scores of the berry size of 10 strawberry cultivars grown in Maryland

Cultivar	Berry length (cm)		Berry width (cm)		L/w		Fruit size (panel)
Albion	4.65	abc	3.49	abc	1.3		77	a
Allstar	4.11	def	3.72	ab	1.1		78	a
Chandler	4.11	def	3.43	abc	1.2		69	abc
Earliglow	3.71	g	3.20	c	1.2		59	c
Flavorfest	5.02	a	3.76	a	1.3		81	a
Monterey	4.30	def	3.61	ab	1.2		75	ab
Portola	4.00	efg	3.53	abc	1.1		73	abc
Rutgers Scarlet	4.44	bcd	3.50	abc	1.3		72	abc
San Andreas	4.79	ab	3.61	ab	1.3		73	abc
Seascape	3.83	fg	3.35	bc	1.1		62	bc
P value	<.0001		<.0001				<.0001

Different lower-case letters within a column indicate significant differences (α = 0.05, Tukey’s HSD).

Table 5. Analyses of variance for size measurements from image analyses (n = 20) of berries from 10 strawberry cultivars grown in Maryland

Physical length	df	SS	MS	F	p > F	%var
Genotypes	9	33.65	3.74	37.70	<.0001	0.54
Replication	1	7.94	7.94	80.06	<.0001	0.13
GxR	9	2.71	0.30	3.03	0.002	0.04
Error	180	17.85	0.10			0.29
Total	199	62.16
Physical width
Genotypes	9	5.25	0.58	6.40	<.0001	0.18
Replication	1	4.48	4.48	49.15	<.0001	0.15
GxR	9	3.69	0.41	4.50	<.0001	0.12
Error	180	16.40	0.09			0.55
Total	199	29.82
Physical length/width
Genotypes	9	1.54	0.17	18.20	<.0001	0.46
Replication	1	0.01	0.01	0.54	0.465	0.00
GxR	9	0.13	0.01	1.55	0.133	0.04
Error	180	1.69	0.01			0.50
Total	199	3.36

Table 6. Sensory intensity scores of the attributes for flavor for berries from 10 strawberry cultivars grown in Maryland

	Aroma								Taste
Cultivar	Aroma (before Chewing)		Fruity		Strawberry		Green		Fermented		Aftertaste		Strawberry flavor
Albion	64	ab	52	ab	60	ab	23	a	14	ab	31	bc	50	b
Allstar	49	cd	45	abc	52	bcd	27	a	16	ab	36	abc	54	b
Chandler	43	d	39	bc	45	dc	34	a	17	ab	39	abc	46	bc
Earliglow	55	bcd	45	abc	56	abc	30	a	20	ab	44	ab	54	b
Flavorfest	68	a	61	a	67	a	27	a	20	ab	41	abc	69	a
Monterey	50	cd	45	abc	49	bcd	24	a	20	ab	37	abc	46	bc
Portola	43	d	32	c	41	d	28	a	9	b	26	c	34	c
Rutgers Scarlet	54	bcd	36	bc	52	bcd	32	a	24	a	49	a	48	bc
San Andreas	59	abc	37	bc	51	bcd	34	a	18	ab	33	bc	40	bc
Seascape	45	d	36	bc	46	bcd	27	a	15	ab	40	abc	42	bc
P value	<.0001		<.0001		<.0001		0.548		<.0001		<.0001		0.004

Different lower-case letters within a column indicate significant differences (α = 0.05, Tukey’s HSD).

Table 7. Soluble solids contents (SSC), initial pH, and titratable acidity (TA) values for each of 10 strawberry cultivars grown in Maryland. Sensory intensity scores of the attributes for flavor (sweetness, sourness)

Cultivar	Sweet (panel)		Soluble solids (%)		Sour (panel)			pH	Titratable acidity (%) (malic acid)		Titratable acidity (%) (citric acid)		SSC/Malic		SSC/Citric
Albion	51	b	5.4	d	30	c	3.6	b	0.56	cd	0.53	cd	10.3	a	6.9	c
Allstar	52	ab	6.6	b	32	bc	3.8	a	0.59	bcd	0.57	bcd	9.5	b	5.6	e
Chandler	43	bc	6.0	c	41	abc	3.6	b	0.70	abc	0.67	abc	8.0	c	5.1	f
Earliglow	50	bc	7.6	a	45	ab	3.7	ab	0.75	a	0.72	a	7.9	c	3.9	j
Flavorfest	66	a	7.6	a	36	bc	3.6	b	0.75	a	0.72	a	9.1	b	4.6	h
Monterey	45	bc	4.9	e	32	bc	3.6	ab	0.54	d	0.52	d	9.5	b	7.3	a
Portola	40	bc	4.5	f	30	c	3.5	b	0.57	cd	0.54	cd	7.5	cd	6.5	d
Rutgers Scarlet	40	bc	6.8	b	55	a	3.5	b	0.83	a	0.79	a	8.0	cd	4.4	b
San Andreas	38	bc	4.2	f	35	bc	3.6	ab	0.51	d	0.49	d	7.9	c	7.2	f
Seascape	37	c	5.0	e	43	abc	3.5	b	0.74	ab	0.70	ab	6.9	e	4.9	g
P value	<.0001		<.0001		<.0001		<.0001		<.0001		<.0001		<.0001		<.0001

Different lower-case letters within a column indicate significant differences (α = 0.05, Tukey’s HSD).

Table 8. Instrumental estimates of berry texture using a texture analyzer (Model TA. XT Plus, Stable Microsystems, Surrey, England), compared with sensory-panel intensity scores of the attributes for texture for berries of 10 strawberry cultivars grown in Maryland

	Texture analyzer										Sensory panel
Cultivar	Firmness (max)^a		Firmness (ave)^b		Juiciness^c		Skin toughness^d		Texture at first bite^e		Firmness		Juiciness		Fibrousness		Crunchiness
Albion	4.8	cd	3.1	bc	12.5	bc	3.1	bcd	6.2	cde	37.8	a	69.9	ab	40.7	a	39.6	a
Allstar	4.7	cd	3.0	bc	12.1	bc	3.5	abc	4.6	de	41.4	a	70.1	ab	38.1	a	41.6	a
Chandler	4.1	d	2.7	c	10.8	c	2.6	cd	5.6	cde	34.6	a	70.1	ab	34.5	a	36.7	a
Earliglow	3.7	d	2.5	c	10.1	c	2.6	cd	4.5	e	31.1	a	72.2	ab	31.3	a	31.7	a
Flavorfest	4.4	d	2.9	bc	11.6	bc	3.0	bcd	4.9	de	39.4	a	77.6	a	32.9	a	33.4	a
Monterey	6.0	bc	3.8	ab	15.2	ab	3.7	ab	6.6	bcd	41.6	a	68.5	ab	34.5	a	34.4	a
Portola	7.8	a	4.6	a	18.5	a	3.7	ab	9.7	a	40.5	a	70.5	ab	38.6	a	40.1	a
Rutgers Scarlet	5.7	bc	3.9	a	15.4	a	3.9	a	7.1	bc	39.4	a	67.6	ab	42.9	a	43.6	a
San Andreas	7.0	ab	4.3	a	17.4	a	3.9	ab	8.4	ab	40.9	a	62.9	b	36.5	a	37.3	a
Seascape	4.2	d	2.7	c	10.7	c	2.3	d	6.4	cde	35.2	a	66.0	ab	34.3	a	35.1	a
P value	<.0001		<.0001		<.0001		<.0001		<.0001		0.336		0.0453		0.6931		0.734

^aFirmness (max): apex of the curve.

^bFirmness (ave): horizontal slice through the curve.

^cJuiciness: area under the curve.

^dSkin toughness: slope of the curve.

^eTexture at first bite: area under the curve to the apex.

Different lower-case letters within a column indicate significant differences between cultivars (α = 0.05, Tukey’s HSD).

Table 9. Means of sensory acceptability scores for the attributes for overall appearance, texture, flavor, quality, and aroma of fresh strawberries from 10 cultivars grown in Maryland

Cultivar	Overall appearance		Overall texture		Overall flavor		Overall quality		Overall aroma
Albion	71	a	66	a	69	ab	63	abc	64	ab
Allstar	70	a	72	a	62	bcd	65	ab	49	cd
Chandler	67	a	61	ab	55	bcd	56	bcd	43	d
Earliglow	67	a	62	ab	64	bc	62	abc	55	bcd
Flavorfest	67	a	74	a	79	a	74	a	68	a
Monterey	69	a	66	ab	60	bcd	56	bcd	50	cd
Portola	67	a	64	ab	50	d	47	cd	43	d
Rutgers Scarlet	56	a	54	b	61	bcd	54	bcd	54	bcd
San Andreas	61	a	63	ab	58	bcd	47	cd	59	abc
Seascape	63	a	53	b	52	cd	44	d	45	d
P value	0.4581		<.0001		<.0001		<.0001		<.0001

Different lower-case letters within a column indicate significant differences (α = 0.05, Tukey’s HSD).