Combining sensory panels with Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to assess nectarine and peach quality

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research methodology.

Figure 2. Hierarchy of positive attributes.

Figure 3. Hierarchy of negative attributes.

Figure 4. A. Example of questions each taster received for the first level of attributes.

Figure 4. B. Example of questions each taster received for the second level of attributes.

Table 1. Characteristics of the samples of nectarines (N1, N2 and N3) and peaches (P1, P2 and P3) obtained by physicochemical analysis

	Weight (g)	Diameter (mm)	CI peel	CI pulp	Firmness (N/cm^2)	°Bx	Acidity (g/L)
N1	212.01 ± 15^C	74.02 ± 2^A	67.01 ± 13^B	3.20 ± 0.4^B	101.01 ± 9^A	11.31 ± 1.0^B	7.81 ± 0.2^A
N2	198.02 ± 8^B	72.31 ± 1.2^B	50.01 ± 18^A	3.12 ± 1.0^B	101.21 ± 10^A	9.50 ± 0.6^A	6.41 ± 0.7^A
N3	181.02 ± 4^A	71.20 ± 1.2^B	54.21 ± 15^AB	−1.10 ± 0.8^A	118.13 ± 10^B	9.60 ± 0.7^AB	12.11 ± 2^B
P1	189.00 ± 3^ab	74.01 ± 1.7^a	5.80 ± 1.3^a	5.41 ± 0.9^a	78.21 ± 3^ab	12.03 ± 0.15^a	12.21 ± 2^B
P2	187.01 ± 3^a	74.10 ± 0.9^a	8.15 ± 2^b	5.12 ± 0.9^a	81.01 ± 2^b	12.25 ± 0.07^a	7.41 ± 0.2^a
P3	192.01 ± 4^c	75.10 ± 0.7^a	5.11 ± 1^a	5.31 ± 0.9^a	74.11 ± 6^a	12.03 ± 0.15^a	8.10 ± 0.2^b

Equal letters in the same column indicate that there are no significant differences (P < 0.05) between the samples (upper case letters: nectarines, lower case letters: peach).

Table 2. Characteristics of the samples of nectarines (N1, N2 and N3) and peaches (P1, P2 and P3) obtained by sensory analysis

Attributes		N1	N2	N3	P1	P2	P3
Touch	Firmness	8.70	8.50	8.71	7.10^b	6.42^b	8.21^a
Olfactory phase	Herbaceous	3.41^AB	2.51^B	4.22^A	2.73	2.22	4.01
	Floral	3.80^A	3.01^B	3.01^B	3.70	4.42	3.10
	Fruity	4.82	4.90	4.81	6.41	6.30	5.20
	Mould-earthy	n.d.	n.d.	n.d.	n.d.	n.d.	n.d.
	Fermented	n.d.	n.d.	n.d.	n.d.	n.d.	n.d.
	Cooked	n.d.	n.d.	n.d.	n.d.	n.d.	n.d.
Gustatory phase	Crunchiness	7.62^A	6.81^B	7.90^A	5.22^b	3.84^c	6.51^a
	Sweetness	4.90^A	5.11^A	3.85^B	6.30^a	6.04^a	4.53^b
	Acidity	2.41^B	2.41^B	3.83^A	2.54	2.36	3.30
	Sour	n.d.	1.16	n.d.	n.d.	n.d.	1.25
	Bitter	n.d.	0.55	0.64	n.d.	0.34	0.72
	Astringent	0.63	n.d.	0.90	n.d.	1.82	1.74
Feel in mouth	Juiciness	5.40^A	5.30^A	4.51^B	6.70^a	5.82^ab	4.91^b
Overall acceptability		5.90^A	5.61^AB	5.25^B	6.81^a	5.90^b	5.22^b

n.d. = not detectable.

Equal letters in the same row indicate that there are no significant differences (P < 0.05) between the samples (upper case letters: nectarines, lower case letters: peach).

Figure 5. Comparison of first-level positive attributes.

Figure 6. Comparison of second level positive attributes.

Figure 7. Comparison of first-level negative attributes.

Figure 8. Comparison of second level negative attributes.

Figure 9. Comparisons among tasting profiles for nectarines.

Figure 10. Comparisons among tasting profiles for peaches.

Figure 11. Prioritisation of nectarines with both tasting models.

Figure 12. Prioritisation of peaches with both tasting models.

Figure 13. Prioritisation of nectarines according to positive and negative attributes.

Figure 14. Prioritisation of peaches according to positive and negative attributes.

Table 3. Questionnaire on satisfaction of the tasters with the AHP methodology

I. In your opinion, the task carried out was:
Very easy	5	4	3	2	1	Very difficult
I. In your opinion, the process for prioritising was:
Very efficient	5	4	3	2	1	Not efficient at all
III. How do you feel about the time invested to obtain the result?
Very satisfied	5	4	3	2	1	Not satisfied at all

Table 4. Results of the satisfaction test with the AHP methodology

	Ease of the task	Efficiency	Satisfaction with the solution
Nectarines	3.78	3.89	4.17
Peaches	3.94	4.39	4.33

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, A.B-P., upon reasonable request.