Sensory and Chemical Analysis of Heirloom Tomatoes

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Sensory and Chemical Analysis of Heirloom Tomatoes in Search of a Better Tomato
Physical Description:
1 online resource (188 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Blandon-Ubeda,Adilia
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.S.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Food Science and Human Nutrition
Committee Chair:
Sims, Charles A
Committee Members:
Bartoshuk, Linda M.
Goodrich, Renee M
Klee, Harry J

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
biochemical -- glms -- sensory -- tomato -- tomatoes -- volatiles
Food Science and Human Nutrition -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Food Science and Human Nutrition thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
Although tomatoes remain popular in the fresh-fruit market, they are often criticized because of poor flavor. Tomato flavor depends on both volatile and non-volatile compounds and their interactions. The development of new varieties of tomatoes has been focused on obtaining high yields, longer shelf-life and resistance to diseases, but may have sacrificed flavor. The objective of this project was to find the characteristics that need to be included in a variety of tomatoes for improved acceptability. Fifty varieties of heirloom or modern tomatoes were evaluated during this study by a panel of 137 tomato consumers. The General Labeled Magnitude Scale (gLMS) was used to measure the intensities of sweetness, sourness, bitterness, saltiness, umami, and overall tomato flavor. The gLMS ranges from 0 (no sensation at all) to 100 (the strongest sensation of any kind ever experienced). The Hedonic gLMS was used to assess overall liking. The anchors of this scale are -100 (the strongest disliking of any kind ever experienced), 0 (neutral) and 100 (the strongest liking of any kind ever experienced). The volatile and non-volatile components of each variety were analyzed on the same day as each panel session. The average rating for ?favorite food? was 60 on the Hedonic gLMS, while overall liking of the tomatoes tasted ranged from 3.5 to 34 corresponding to Marmande VFA and Cherry Roma varieties, respectively. Positive correlations between overall liking and texture, sweetness, umami, and tomato flavor intensity were found, as well as a negative correlation between overall liking and bitterness. Overall liking also showed significant correlations with multiple volatile and non-volatile compounds. This may imply that if these variables are modified the liking of tomatoes can be improved. Overall liking scores of ?Tomato Lovers? correlated more strongly with attribute intensities, volatile and non-volatile components than those scores from ?Non-tomato Lovers?. In the case of ?High tasters? and ?Low tasters?, they showed big differences in the amount of correlations found for each group. While ?High tasters? showed a total of twenty seven correlations, ?Low tasters? only showed eleven. ?High tasters? also showed negative correlations between overall liking and Isobutyl acetate and 2-methylbutyl acetate, which was not the case for ?Low tasters?.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Adilia Blandon-Ubeda.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local:
Adviser: Sims, Charles A.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2012-02-29

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID:
UFE0043431:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 SENSORY AND CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF HEIRLOOM TOMATOES: IN SEARCH OF A BETTER TOMATO By ADILIA BLANDON UBEDA A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FO R THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Adilia Blandon Ubeda

PAGE 3

3 To God and my dearly loved mother

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Charles Sims for giving me the opportunity to pursue my der his guidance Special thanks to my other committee members: Dr. Linda Bartoshuk, Dr. Harry Klee, and Dr. Rene Goodrich. Their knowledge and expertise were crucial for the completion of this project. I owe my deepest gratitude to Dr Asli Odabasi and Dr. Denise Ti eman for all their help in the most important times of this study. I also thank Lorenzo Puentes, Eric Dreyer, and Sonia Hudson. Thanks for t he assistance with the panels and all the great memories I am taking with me Special thanks to Carlos Villalta, t he most patient, considerate, and noble human being I ever known. Thanks for being my best frien d and great support. Thanks also go out to my friends Kenny Trigueros, Maria Isabel Zamora, and Antonio Yaquian. I am really lucky to have such peop le in my life. Thanks to aunts Aura and Yelba, Grandmother Carmen, my father, and the rest of my family; but most of all, thanks to my mother. You have been my greatest motivation. I know that there are not enough words to thank you for a life full of sac rifices and love, but I want you to feel this achievement as yours. You are the most genuine love in my life.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 16 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 23 Fresh Tomato Market ................................ ................................ .............................. 23 Background Inf ormation ................................ ................................ .......................... 24 Tomato Quality ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 26 Factors Influencing Quality ................................ ................................ ..................... 27 Bre eding Practices ................................ ................................ ........................... 27 Harvesting Methods ................................ ................................ ......................... 29 Postharvest Practices ................................ ................................ ....................... 32 Low temperature ................................ ................................ ........................ 32 Ethylene treatment ................................ ................................ ..................... 33 Controlled atmosphere storage ................................ ................................ .. 34 Tomato Flavor ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 34 Volatile Composition ................................ ................................ ......................... 35 Non v olatile Components ................................ ................................ ................. 39 Flavor Perception and Differences between Subjects ................................ ............ 41 Differences in Taste Perception and its Measurement ................................ ........... 43 Oth er Studies ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 47 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................ ................................ ................ 51 Tomatoes ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 51 Panelists ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 51 Questionnaire Development ................................ ................................ ................... 52 Panelists Training ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 52 Evaluation of the Sample ................................ ................................ ........................ 55 Biochemical Analysis ................................ ................................ .............................. 55 Statistical Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 56

PAGE 6

6 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ............... 61 General Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 61 Analysis for All Panelists Combined ................................ ................................ ....... 62 Correlations between Overall Liking and Sensory Variables ............................ 62 Correlations between Overall Liking and Nonvolatile Compounds ................... 64 Correlations between Overall Liking and Volatile Compounds ......................... 66 Tomato Lovers vs. Non Tomato Lovers ................................ ................................ .. 69 Correl ations between Overall Liking and Sensory Variables ............................ 69 Correlations between Overall Liking and Non v olatile Compounds .................. 70 Correla tions between Overall Liking and Volatile Compounds ......................... 70 High Tasters vs. Low Tasters ................................ ................................ ................. 72 Correlations between Overall Liking and S ensory Variables ............................ 73 Correlations between Overa ll Liking and Non v olatile Compounds .................. 73 Correlations between Overall Liking and Vo latile Compounds ......................... 74 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 142 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ ................................ ................................ 145 B BIOCHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FIFTY VARIETIES OF TOMATOES ........... 155 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 182 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 188

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Concentrations and odor thresholds of major components in fresh ripe tomatoes using a blending procedure (Adapted from Buttery, 1993). ................. 37 3 1 Varieties tasted in H1 (sessions 1 to 4). Sessions were conducted on February and March of 2010. ................................ ................................ ............. 60 3 2 Varieties tasted in H2 (sessions 5 to 8). Sessions were conducted on November and December of 2010. ................................ ................................ ..... 60 4 1 Sensory ratings for all 50 varieties evaluated. Varieties are organized from best to worst in terms of Overall Liking. ................................ .............................. 76 4 2 Pearson correlation coefficients (r) between Overall Liking and of the attributes evaluated for all panelists, tomato lovers, non tomato lovers, high tasters and low ta sters. Only significant correlations are shown. 0.05. .......... 79 B 1.1 Biochemical composition of fifty varieties of tomatoes. Part 1. ......................... 155 B 1.2 Biochemical composition of fifty varieties of tomatoes. Part 2. ......................... 158 B 1.3 Biochemical composition of fifty varieties of tomatoes. Part 3. ......................... 161 B 1.4 Biochemical composition of fifty varieties of tomatoes. Part 4. ......................... 164 B 1.5 Biochemical composition of fifty varieties of tomatoes. Part 5. ......................... 167 B 1.6 Biochemical composition of fifty varieties of tomatoes. Part 6. ......................... 170 B 1.7 Biochemical composition of fifty varieties of tomatoes. Part 7. ......................... 173 B 1.8 Biochemical composition of fifty varieties of tomatoes. Part 8. ......................... 176 B 1.9 Biochemical composition of fifty varieties of t omatoes. Part 9. ......................... 179

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Different ripening stages on tomato fruit. Retrieved from: http://rics.ucdavis.edu/postharvest 2/Produce/ProduceFacts/Veg/tomato.html ... 31 2 2 USDA Tomato Ripeness Color Chart. Photo by A. Kader. ................................ 31 3 1 Hedonic gLMS (General Labeled Magnitude Scale) used to measure affective responses. ................................ ................................ ............................ 58 3 2 gLMS (General Labeled Magnitude Scale) used to measure intensity of different attributes. ................................ ................................ .............................. 58 3 3 Tomato samples in glass tubes where air flowed through for one hour. ............. 59 4 1 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) tex ture liking and B) sweetness intensity. ................................ ........................... 82 4 2 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) umami intensity and B) tomato flavor intensity. ................................ .................. 83 4 3 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) bitterness intensity and B) relationship between saltiness intensity and umami intensity. ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 84 4 4 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) glucose and B) fructose ................................ ................................ ...................... 85 4 5 Correlation and regression for all panelists between over all liking and A) soluble solids and B) relationship between sweetness intensity and tomato flavor intensity ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 86 4 6 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) s ugar:acid and B) isovaleronitrile ................................ ................................ ........ 87 4 7 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) isovaleraldehyde and B) 3 methyl 1 butanol ................................ ...................... 88 4 8 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) isovaleric acid and B) phenylacetaldehyde ................................ ......................... 89 4 9 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 ol and B) 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 one ................................ ....... 90 4 10 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) ionone B ) cyclocitral ................................ ................................ ........................ 91

PAGE 9

9 4 11 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) geranial B) 1 penten 3 one ................................ ................................ ................. 92 4 12 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) trans 2 heptenal B) 1 penten 3 ol ................................ ................................ ....... 93 4 13 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking a nd A) cis 2 penten 1 ol B) trans 2 pentenal ................................ ................................ ....... 94 4 14 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) trans 3 hexen 1 ol B) 3 pentanone ................................ ................................ ..... 95 4 15 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) 1 pentanol B) Benzyl cyanide ................................ ................................ ................ 96 4 16 Correlation and regression for all pane lists between overall liking and A) Nonyl aldehyde B) cis 4 decenal ................................ ................................ ........ 97 4 17 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) methional B) 2,5 dimethyl 4 hydroxy 3(2H) furanone ................................ ......... 98 4 18 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) 1 octen 3 oneB) benzothiazole ................................ ................................ .............. 99 4 19 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) 2 methylbutyl acetate B) isobutyl acetate ................................ ............................ 100 4 20 Correlation and regression between overall liking and texture l iking for A) tomato lovers and B) non tomato lovers ................................ ........................... 101 4 21 Correlation and regression between overall liking and sweetness intensity for A) tomato lovers and B) non tomato lovers ................................ ...................... 101 4 22 Correlation and regression between overall l iking and tomato flavor intensity f o r A ) t o m a t o l o v e r s and B) non tomato lovers ................................ ................. 102 4 23 Correlation and regression between overall liking and umami intensity for tomato lovers. ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 102 4 24 Correlation and regression between overall liking and bitterness intensity for non tomato lovers. ................................ ................................ ............................ 103 4 25 Correlation and regression between overall liking and glucose for A) tomato lovers and B) non tomato lovers. ................................ ................................ ...... 103 4 26 Correlation and regression between overall liking and fructose for A) tomato lovers and B) non tomato lovers. ................................ ................................ ...... 104

PAGE 10

10 4 27 Correlation and regression between overall liking and soluble sol ids for A) tomato lovers and B) non tomato lovers. ................................ .......................... 104 4 28 Correlation and regression between overall liking and sugar to acid ratio (sugar:acid) for A) Tomato lovers and B) non tomato lovers ........................... 105 4 29 Correlation and regression between overall liking and 1 penten 3 one for A) tomato lovers and B) non tomato lovers. ................................ .......................... 105 4 30 Correlation and regression between overall liking and trans 2 heptenal for A) tomato lovers and B) non tomato lovers. ................................ .......................... 106 4 31 Correlation and regression between overall liking and 3 p entanone for A) tomato lovers and B) non tomato lovers. ................................ .......................... 106 4 32 Correlation and regression between overall liking and nonyl aldehyde for A) tomato lovers and B) non tomato lovers. ................................ .......................... 107 4 33 Correlation and regression between overall liking and cis 4 decenal for A) tomato lovers and B) non tomato lovers. ................................ .......................... 107 4 34 Correl ation and regression between overall liking and methional for A) tomato lovers and B) non tomato lovers. ................................ .......................... 108 4 35 Correlation and regression between overall liking and 2,5 dimethyl 4 hydroxy 3 (2h) furanone for A) tomato lovers and B) non tomato lovers. .......... 108 4 36 Correlation and regression for tomato lovers between overall liking and A) isovaleronitrile B) isovaleraldehyde ................................ ................................ .. 109 4 37 Correlation and regression for tomato lovers between overall liking and A) 3 methyl 1 butanol B) isovaleric Acid. ................................ ................................ 110 4 38 Correl ation and regression for tomato lovers between overall liking and A) 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 ol B) 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 one. ................................ ........... 111 4 39 Correlation and regression for tomato lovers between overall li king and A) cyclocitral B) geranial. ................................ ................................ ...................... 112 4 40 Correlation and regression for tomato lovers between overall liking and A) 1 penten 3 ol B) cis 2 penten 1 ol. ................................ ................................ ...... 113 4 41 Correlation and regression for tomato lovers between overall liking and A) trans 2 pentenal B) trans 3 hexen 1 ol. ................................ ............................ 114 4 42 Correlation and regression f or tomato lovers between overall liking and A) 1 pentanol B) guaiacol. ................................ ................................ ........................ 115

PAGE 11

11 4 43 Correlation and regression for tomato lovers between overall liking and A) 1 octen 3 one B) benzothiazole. ................................ ................................ .......... 116 4 44 Correlation and regression for tomato lovers between overall liking and A) 4 carene B) isobutyl acetate. ................................ ................................ ............... 117 4 45 Correlatio n and regression for tomato lovers between overall liking and A) 2 methylbutyl acetate B) benzyl alcohol. ................................ ............................. 118 4 46 Correlation and regression for non tomato lovers between overall liking and A ) 2 isobutylthiazole B) phenylacetaldehyde. ................................ ................... 119 4 47 Correlation and regression for non tomato lovers between overall liking and A) 2 phenyl ethanol B) benzyl cyanide. ................................ ............................ 120 4 48 Correlation and regression for non tomato lovers between overall liking and benzaldehyde. ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 121 4 49 Correlation and regression between overall l iking and texture liking for A) high tasters and B) low tasters. ................................ ................................ ........ 121 4 50 Correlation and regression between overall liking and sweetness intensity for A) high tasters and B) low tasters. ................................ ................................ .... 122 4 51 Correlation and regression between overall liking and tomato flavor intensity for A) high tasters and B) low tasters. ................................ ............................... 122 4 52 Correlation and regression between overall liking and umami intensity for low tasters. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 123 4 53 Correlation and regression between overall liking and glucose for A) high tasters and B) low tasters. ................................ ................................ ................ 123 4 54 Correlation and regression between overall liking and fructose for A) high tasters and B) low tasters. ................................ ................................ ................ 124 4 55 Correlation and regression between overall liking and soluble solids for A) high tasters and B) low tasters. ................................ ................................ ........ 12 4 4 56 Correlation and regression between overall liking and sugar:acid (ratio ) for A) high tasters and B) low tasters. ................................ ................................ ........ 125 4 57 Correlation and regression between overall liking and benzyl cyanide A) high tasters and B) low tasters. ................................ ................................ ................ 125 4 58 Correlation and regression between overall liking and 1 penten 3 one A) high tasters and B) low tasters. ................................ ................................ ................ 126

PAGE 12

12 4 59 Correlation and regression between overal l liking and 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 ol for A) high tasters and B) low tasters. ................................ ............................... 126 4 60 Correlation and regression between overall liking and nonyl aldehyde for A) high tasters and B) low tasters ................................ ................................ ........ 127 4 61 Correlation and regression between overall liking and methional for A) high tasters and B) low tasters ................................ ................................ ................. 127 4 62 Corre lation and regression between overall liking and 3 pentanone for A) high tasters and B) low tasters ................................ ................................ ......... 128 4 63 Correlation and regression between overall liking and isovaleronitrile for high tas ters. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 128 4 64 Correlation and regression for high tasters between overall liking and A) isovaleraldehyde B) 3 methyl 1 butanol. ................................ .......................... 129 4 65 Correlation and regression for high tasters between overall liking and A) isovaleric Acid B) 1 nitro 3 methylbutane. ................................ ........................ 130 4 66 Correlation and regression for high tasters between over all liking and A) 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 one B) ionone. ................................ ................................ 131 4 67 Correlation and regression for high tasters between overall liking and A) cyclocitral B) geranial ................................ ................................ ...................... 132 4 68 Correlation and regression for high tasters between overall liking and A) guaiacol B) trans 2 pentenal ................................ ................................ ............ 133 4 69 Correlation and regression for hi gh tasters between overall liking and A) trans 2 heptenal B) trans 3 hexen 1 ol. ................................ ............................ 134 4 70 Correlation and regression for high tasters between overall liking and A) 1 pentanol B) 1 penten 3 ol. ................................ ................................ ................ 135 4 71 Correlation and regression for high tasters between overall liking and A) cis 2 penten 1 ol B) cis 4 decenal. ................................ ................................ ........ 136 4 72 Correlation and regression for high tasters between overall liking and A) 2,5 dimethyl 4 hydroxy 3(2H) furanone B) 4 carene. ................................ ............. 137 4 73 Correlation and regression for high tasters between overa ll liking and A) 1 octen 3 one B) benzothiazole. ................................ ................................ .......... 138 4 74 Correlation and regression for high tasters between overall liking and A) isobutyl Acetate B) 2 methylbutyl acetate. ................................ ........................ 139

PAGE 13

13 4 75 Correlation and regression for low tasters between overall liking and A) benzaldehyde B) phenylacetaldehyde. ................................ ............................. 140 4 76 Correlation and re gression for low tasters between overall liking and A) geranylacetone B) 2 phenyl ethanol. ................................ ................................ 141

PAGE 14

14 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science SENSORY AND CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF HEIRLOOM TOMATOES: IN SEARCH OF A BETTER TOMATO By Adilia Blandon Ubeda August 2011 Chair: Charles A. Sims Major: Food Science and Human Nutrition Although tomatoes rema in popular in the fresh fruit market, they are often criticized because of poor flavor. Tomato flavor depends on both volatile and non volatile compounds and their interactions. The development of new varieties of tomatoes has been focused on obtaining hig h yields, longer shelf life and resistance to diseases, but may have sacrificed flavor. The objective of this project was to find the characteristics that need to be included in a variety of tomatoes for improved acceptability. Fifty varieties of heirloom or modern tomatoes were evaluated dur ing this study by a panel of 137 tomato consumers. The General Labeled Magnitude Scale (gLMS) was used to measure the intensities of sweetness, sourness, bitterness, saltiness, umami, and overall tomato flavor. The gLMS ranges from 0 (no sensation at all) to 100 (the strongest sensation of any kind ever experienced). The Hedonic gLMS was used to assess overall liking. The anchors of this scale are 100 (the strongest disliking of any kind ever experienced), 0 (neutral) a nd 100 (the strongest liking of any kind ever experienced). The volatile and non volatile components of each variety were analyzed on the same day as each panel session.

PAGE 15

15 liki ng of the tomatoes tasted ranged from 3.5 to 34 corresponding to Marmande VFA and Cherry Roma varieties, respectively. Positive correlations between overall liking and texture, sweetness, umami, and tomato flavor intensity were found, as well as a negative correlation between overall liking and bitterness. Overall liking also showed significant correlations with multiple volatile and non volatile compounds. This may imply that if these variables are modified the liking of tomatoes can be improved. Overall l volatile and non volatile componen ts than th t In showed a total of twenty negative correlations between overall liking and Isobutyl acetate and 2 methylbutyl acetat

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION T omato ( Solanum lycopersicum L ) belongs to the family of the Solanaceae (Nunes 2008; 2009) and originated in the coast al highlands of western South America where wild tomato plants can still be found However, there is no proof that South Americans cultivat ed or consumed tomato prior to the Spanish Conquest. Through unidentified means, tomatoes migrated to Central Americ a, where Mayans and other Mesoamericans domesticated the plant and included it in their cuisine (Smith 2001) Tomato is considered a berry fruit, but is typically cultiva ted and consumed as a vegetable (Petro Turza 1986) It is also considered one of the most consumed horticultural crops in the world (Nunes 2008; 2009) According to the United States D epartment of Agriculture (USDA ) ( 2009), leading producer of tomatoes is China with 33 811 659.76 metric tons ( t) in 2009, followed by t he United States (U S ) with 12 575 885.19 t In the U S fresh and processed tomatoes represent more than $2 billion in farm cash receipts annually In terms of consumption, the tomato is the f ourth most popular fresh market vegetable after the consumption of fresh tomatoes was approximately 5.45 Kilo grams (Kg) ( 12 lb ) per capita ( (Lucier and others 2000) ) but it least 7.73 Kg ( 17 lb ) per capita and by 200 9 the consumption increased to 8. 77 Kg ( 19.3 lb ) per capita (USDA Economic Research Service. 2010) This increase has been attributed to a combination of factors, such as change in migration trends, increase in ethnic populations, increase in health awareness of consumers and changes in (Lucier and others 2000)

PAGE 17

17 R egardless of the rise in the utilization pattern that has been observed, many studies ( (Bruhn and others 1991) ; have reported that fresh tomatoes available in the retail marketplace have poor flavor, which can have conseq uences on consumption behavior (Hongsoongn ern and Chambers 2008) The development of new varieties of tomatoes has focused on obtaining high yields, longer shelf life and resistanc e to diseases (Hongsoongnern and Chambers 2008) which may have sacri ficed flavor characteris tics in fresh market tomatoe s (Hongsoongnern and Chambers 2008) Other researchers have reported that lack of tomato flavor is associated with various storage treatments, e.g. modified atm osphere ( (Kader and others 1978b) ; (Maul and others 2000) ), storage under nitrogen, low oxygen conditions, as well as low temperature storage (Boukobza and Taylor 2002) Kader and others (1977) stated that the poor flavor is also due to harvesting the tomatoes at a mature green ripened stage so that the fruit is suitable for transport. Fresh tomatoes harvested at the red ripe stage are co nsidered to have the best flavor. However, fruits at this stage are very fragile and can become easily damaged during posth arvest handling and treatments (Hongsoongnern and Chambers 2008) The characteristic flav or of tomatoes is formed from both volatile and non volatile compounds and also from their interactions. Over 400 volatile compounds have been identified in fresh tomatoes (Petro Turza 1986) However, it is li kely that only a limited (Krumbein and others 2004) Based on odor threshold studies, only 17 compounds were found to be im portant in tomato (Buttery 1993) The same author also indicated that a combination of some volatiles at appropriate concentrations may contribute to the characteristic tomato flavor.

PAGE 18

18 Those included cis 3 hexenal, cis 3 hexenol, hexanal, 1 penten 3 one, 3 methylbutanal, trans 2 hexenal, 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 one, methyl salicylate, 2 isobuty ionone. Buttery and Ling (1993) suggested a similar set of volatiles, which included the above components, plus hexanol, geranylacetone, 2 ionone, 3 methylbutanol and 3 methylbutanal. Krumbein and Auerswald (1998) analyzed the odor active volatiles of tomato using gas chromatography olfactometry and aroma extract dilution analysis. They found th at cis 3 hexenal, hexanal, 1 octen 3 one, methional, 1 penten 3 one and 3 methylbutanal belonged to the most odor active aroma vola tiles in fresh tomatoes. C ompo unds in fresh tomatoes develop and change over the ripening stages of the fruit (Hongsoongnern and Chambers 2008) Many volatile compounds increased sign ificantly as the fruits matu re (Buttery 1993) Some of the f actors that are responsible for differences in volatile compound content include tomato variety, growing conditions, and stage of ripeness. This represents a large variability and th us, enormous challenge s for those trying to investigate the contribution of aroma compounds to the flavor characteristics of fresh tomatoes It is also necessary to consider the non volatile compounds present in the fruits. T he se include sugars, minerals, organic acids, and free amino ac ids. Petro Turza (1986 ) mentioned that the p leasant sweet sour taste of tomatoes is mainly due to their sugar and organic acid content. Sugars, primarily glucose and fructose, contribute to about 50% of the dry matter conte nt in tomatoes. Saccharose is also present in the fruit, but it rarely exceeds 0.1% of the fresh mass. Other sugars, including raffinose, arabinose, galactose, and the sugar alcohol myo inositol have also been identified in

PAGE 19

19 tomatoes (Petro Turza 1986) During the different growth stages of the tomatoes there are significant compositional changes. In the initial stage of development the tomato contains <1% sugar, with a ratio of glucose: fructose of 1.8. During growth and ripening, the sugar content increases significantly and the glucose: fructose ratio gradually decreases. The total sugar content of the ripe tomato is between 1.7 and 4.7%, depending on the variety ( Ste vens and Rick 1986 ; Davies and Kempton 1975 ). Organic acids form more than 10% of the dry content of tomatoes and citric and malic acids are predominant (Petro Turza 1986) The acid content of tomatoes is also dependent on the stage of maturity. In the mature green stage the malic acid: citric acid ratio is above 1. After this the amount of citric acids exceeds that of malic acid and finally, in the ripe red to mato, t he ratio is 0.5 or below (Davies and Kempton 1975) Tomato flavor is a unique trait that has complex genetic control and strong environmental effects (Scott 2001) which makes finding a clear pathway to improve flavor attributes difficult Although several studies have focused o n trying to determine the characteristics that are important in tomato flavor not enough has been found to At present, it has been complicated to find a volatile pa ttern related with good flavor i n tomatoes (Scott 2001) as well as appropriate levels of s ugar s and acid s. So far, a clear pathway to solve the problem of poor fl avor has not been found. Furthermore there are other factors that make the task even more complicated. somatosensation (Duf fy and Bartoshuk 2000) However, flavor experience depends on

PAGE 20

20 the combination of responses from the senses and the mental handling of these inputs (Reineccius 2006) which can v ary greatly from individual to indivi dual. Acceptance of sweet and rejection of bitter appear to be hard wired, but the effect of odors depends more on experience (Bartoshuk and Beauchamp 1994) Nutritional stimuli on human behavior are mostly under stood, for example, the effect of carbohydrate consumption and hydrolysis, blood glucose levels and their consequences on appetite. However, this is not the case for flavor stimuli. Flavor perception depends on several senses, often called modalities (Taylor and Hort 2004) O ther authors also mentioned that additional inputs ( food matrix, volatile and nonvolatile release, composition, mastication, saliva, hearing, etc. ) influences flavor perception (Reineccius 2006) There is also genetic variation in taste that impacts food perception Bartoshuk discovered that there are dif ferent taster groups (Bartoshuk 1991) She classifi ed them as supertasters, those who experience the most intense taste sensations, medium tasters who perceive average taste intensities, and weak tasters who perceive the weakest taste sensations S u pertasting is partially due to a high density of fungifor m papillae (Duffy and others 2004) which are the structures that contain the taste buds of the anterior tongue (Bartoshuk 2000) It is well known that the way every person perceives flavor is critical when it comes to food preferences. The understanding of this variation in taste provides a great opportunity to further understand food selection, variability between supertasters, medium ta sters and weak tasters (Duffy and Bartoshuk 2000)

PAGE 21

21 At the beginning of the 20 th century threshold measure ment was the technique mostly used in sensory research. This technique was (and is) used to id entify those compounds that are important in terms of their odor unit which is the ratio of the compound concentration to the odor threshold of the same compound (Buttery 1993) However, thresholds only provide a very limited view of the capacities of our senses. Threshold measures are claimed to be related to a variety of problems and also fail to describe an accurate image of suprathreshold sensitivity (Bartoshuk 1978) Fortunately, psychophysics has advanced significantly beyond these measurements and has developed new techniques that are promising in terms of measuring perceived intensity and to provide accurate comparisons across individuals (Bartoshuk 2000) These techniques are based on the validatio n of a g eneralized Labeled Magnitude Scale (gLMS) for taste comparisons across weak tasters medium tasters, and supertasters (Bartoshuk and others 2004) as well as the use of the gLMS as a hedonic scale for food preferences (Bartoshuk and Snyder 2004) The main objective of this study was to determine the biochemical attributes and sensory characteristics that are related to overall liking of tomatoes. To accomplish t his objective, a sensory study was designed using the gLMS to measure sensory intensities and the Hedonic gLMS to measure hedonic respons es. F orty two varieties of heirloom tomatoes showing a large chemical diversity were grown at the University of Florida and eight varieties were obtained from a local retail store Heirloom tomatoes are non hybrid cultivar s and they were commonly grown during earlier periods in human history, but have not been used in modern large scale agriculture (O'Donnell 2006) T his sample

PAGE 22

22 represents great variability and offers the possibility to study the contributions of sugars, acids and volatiles to flavor. C orrelations between overall liking of the samples with sensory responses ( text ure liking, sweetness, sourness, saltiness, bitterness, umami, and flavor intensity) and biochemical components (volatile and nonvolatile compounds) were analyzed. Significant correlations may suggest that if these variables are modified the liking of t oma toes can be improved. Additionally, the differences on tomato L offer a big opportunity for scientists and researchers to develop or find the ideal tomatoes for target groups.

PAGE 23

23 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Fresh Tomato Market Tomato is a very popular item in the fresh fruit market. In the United States (U.S.) tomato has been reported as the fourth most consumed after potat oes, lettuce, and onions (USDA Economic Research Service. 2010) It is a warm season crop which origin ated in in the coastal highlands of western South America (Smith 2001) It is produced domestically year round, but imports from Mexico during winter and spring are having an increased impact (Sargent and Moretti 2004) In 2008, in terms of total production, the to p five producers were China, United States, Turkey, India and Italy. China produced 33,811,659.76 metric tons (t) while the U.S. produced about 12,575,885.19 t (USDA Economic Research Service. 2010 ) National fresh market tomato acreage has decreased over the past decades. It has decreased from 463,020 acres in 1960 to 442,100 acres in 2009. From this acreage, 110,200 acres were used in 2009 to produce fresh market tomatoes The total production in 2009 was 1 414.192 t and from this amount 146.81 t were destined for the fresh mar ket (USDA Economic Research Service. 2010) Fresh market tomatoes are produced in every State in the U.S., with c ommercial scale production in about 20 s tates. California and Florida produce fresh market tomatoes on 30,000 and 40,000 acres, respectively. Together, these two states have a bout 66 percent of total U.S. fresh tomato acreage Ohio, Virginia, Georgia, and Tennessee are next in the top six in terms of planted area (Lucier and others 2000) In 2009, the United States exported about 170 379.7 3 t of fresh tomatoes. This amount was divided into three types: Round ( 152,713.211 t ), R oma (plum type)

PAGE 24

24 ( 11,874.14 t ) and cherry tomatoes ( 5,792.37 t ) (USDA Economic Research Service. 2010) These tomatoes were exported m ostly to Canada ( 110,357.66 t ) and Mexico ( 57,721.89 t ). The rest were exported to Japan, Bermuda, Antigua, Hong Kong and other countries. The total amount of fresh tomatoes imported in 2009 was 1,189,599.97 t and came mainly from Mexico ( 1,046,867.60 t ), Canada ( 130,310.28 t ), and t he Netherlands ( 5,307.94 t ). C onsumption of fresh tomatoes has increased from 5.45 Kg ( 12 lb ) per capita d and to at least 7.73 Kg ( 17 lb ) per capita y 200 9 the consumption increased to 8.77 Kg ( 19.3 lb ) per capita (USDA Economic Research Service. 2010) This increment in consumption has been attributed to factors such as immigration trends, preferences an increase in ethnic populations, as well as an increase in health awareness of consumers (Lucier and others 2000) However, it has been reported that consumer s are dissatisfied with the f lavor of fresh tomatoes available in the supermarket (Baldwin and others 2000) which in the future may have a negative effect on consumption trend s (Hongsoongnern and Chamb ers 2008) Some of the reasons why tomatoes for fresh market have poor flavor range from poor genetic material to harvest and handling procedures (Baldwin and others 2000) Background Information Tomato ( Solanum lyc opersicum L.) belongs to the family of the Solanaceae and is considered a berry fruit, but it is cultivated and used as a vegetable (Petro Turza 1986) Tomato is described as a two to many celled berry with f leshy placenta which contains several small kidney shaped seeds covered with short firm hairs. The seeds are

PAGE 25

25 surrounded by jellylike parenchyma cells, which fill locular cavities (Madhavi and Salunkhe 1998) Tomato i s one of the main sources of lycopene, a major carotenoid without provitamin A activity (Rao and others 1998) Many population studies have established an association with dietary intake of tomatoes and reduced risk of c hronic diseases (Rao and others 1998) The ability of lycopene to act as a potent antioxidant is thought to be responsible for protecting cells against oxidative damage (Rao and Agarwal 1999) In addition to its antioxidant properties, lycopene is also supposed to induce cellular communication as well as to control hormonal, immune systems and other metabolic pathways (Zhang and others 1991) To mato is considered a climacteric fruit (Madhavi and Salunkhe 1998) which entails the presence of a peak in respiration and an associated burst of ethylene as part of its ripening mechanism. This ethylene burst is req uired for normal fruit ripening (Alexander and Grierson 2002) and also in subsequent changes (Madhavi and Salunkhe 1998) The changes in respiration and ethylene production are highly associated with the disappearance of starch, degradation of chlorophyll, synthesis of lycopene, development of flavor components and polygalacturonase (a cell wall hydrolyzing enzyme) (McGlasson 1993). There are different tomato varieties avai lable in the marketplace and even though t he round red flesh tomato prevails in the fresh market, red a nd yellow fleshed round, plum (R oma type tomato ), cluster, and small sized kinds such as cherry, grape and min i pear types are also available (Sargent and Moretti 2004)

PAGE 26

26 Numerous cultivars have been developed in the last decades (Madhavi and Salunkhe 1998) The cultivars developed for fresh market and processing have different characteristics, each adjusted to the requirements of either the fresh or the processing market. P rocessing varieties require intrinsic rheological characteristics that make them appropriate for various processing applications (Madhavi and Salunkhe 1998) or the presence of a specific attribute for a particular product f or example, higher content of soluble solids (from 5 9%) to produce tomato sauce (USDA Economi c Research Service. 2010) O n the other hand, tomatoes destined for fresh market must have acceptable flavor, color, and texture to satisfy consumer demands and handling requirements (Madhavi and Salunkhe 1998) Toma to Quality Quality has been defined as the assessment from the relative values of several characteristics that considered together will determine the overall acceptability of the product (Arthey 1975) E ven though t he term seems simple, quality can be very difficult to measure because of its subjectivity and th us, its variability in different markets. This is the case of tomato fruit quality for fresh consumption. For some authors ( Kader and others 1978b ; Sinesio and others 2010 ) tomato quality is related to visual appearance (visual, shape and color), texture (firmness, mealiness, juiciness ), flavor attributes and nutritional val ue, while for others, a high quality fruit is defined only on the basis of firm and turgid appearance, uniform and shiny color, no signs of mechanical damage, shrinking or decay (Sargent and Moretti 2004) This is the main re ason why maintaining optimal visual quality during production and marketing has been a priority (Maul and others 1997) However, a t present more attention is being given to other quality factors

PAGE 27

27 to fulfill consumer demand s (Kader 1986) This is in response to the fact that even when visual appearance plays an important role, it is sensory quality (flavor and texture) that has the greatest influence o n consumer satisfaction and therefor e, in repeat purchases (Kader and others 1978b) A large inconsistency is encountered between consumer requests (acce ptable flavor, color, texture) and production and handling requirements (Madhavi and Salunkhe 1998) The demand for fresh tomatoes has led to techniq ues that prolong shelf life of tomato fruit so that they can be ship ped over long distances (Boukobza and Taylor 2002) Harvesting at immatur e green or early stages of ripening, and ship ping to retailers under controlled conditions are also techniques used to prolong storage (Boukobza and Taylor 2002) However, the biochemical ch anges that occur under these conditions affect flavor quality (Ratanachinakorn and others 1997) These techniques (breeding practices that do not select for flavor, harvesting of green fruit and temperature ab use) contribute to poor flavor quality in tomato fruit (Baldwin and others 2000) Factors Influencing Q uality Breeding Practices The onset of fruit ripening in tomatoes represents the start of several biochemical an d physiological processes that affect the quality of the fruit (Madhavi and Salunkhe 1998) These changes include alteration in the structure and composition of cell walls, which affect fruit firmness, metabolism of sugars and acids, biosynthesis of carotenoids, and synthesis of hormones in charge of the rate of ripening (Schuch 1994)

PAGE 28

28 Tomato research has mainly focused on the selection of new varieties with improved firmness and extended shelf life (Boukobza and Taylor 2002) A number of genes have been identified and isolated in ripening and ripe tomatoes. Some of the se genes encode the enzymes polygalacturonase (PG) and pectinesterase (PE). These enzymes are critical in the determination of texture by affecting the metabolism of pectin in the cell wall. PG hydrolyzes the 1,4 linkages in the polygalacturonic acid, reducing the chain length, while PE modifies the degree of esterification of pectin (Schuch 1994) These modified tomatoes were reported to be firmer, last longer on the vin es, and are less prone to spoilage on and off the vine, which leads to better postharvest handling (Madhavi and Salunkhe 1998) However, cell wall structure can have an effect on aroma binding and release (Baldwin and others 2000) Some studies have shown that when PG is down regulated in red ripe tomatoes, a lower level of volatiles is produced (Baldwin and others 2000) Another way to e xtend shelf life is to postpone or decrease ethylene production (Baldwin and others 2000) This has been done by altering the ethylene biosynthesis pathway so that the key enzymes are down regulated. The ripening and softening process can also be slowed down by using ripening mutants, such as nonripening ( nor ), ripening inhibitor ( rin ), N ever ripe ( Nr ), and alcobaca ( alc ). R in and nor do not ripen, do not show the climacteric rise in carbon dioxide and ethylene, and c ontain reduced PG activity. The rin and nor fruit do not develop normal red color. Alc fruit have good storage qualities and can produce a light orange red color on the plant, but do not ripen off the plant if harvested when mature green (Baldwin and others 2000) All these fruit have been developed by breeders using normal ripening lines to produce hybrids with

PAGE 29

29 extended shelf life attributes, but rin hybrids have been more successful commercially (Baldwin and others 2000) However rin, nor and alc hybrids have been reported to be bland in taste which represents a flavor problem (Scott 2001) Harvest ing Methods Harvesting tomatoes as near t o as well as reducing the time from the field to the consumer table, are the best way s to assure good flavor for the consumer However, this is not practical within the current handling and marketing system (Kader and others 1978b) For this reason, depending on the transportation distance (Maul and others 1997) and market and production area (Sargent and Morett i 2004) tomatoes are harvested at different stages of maturity In Florida, about 85% of the fresh market fruit is harvested at a mature green stage, so it can be transported to distant markets (Maul and others 1997) Figure 2 1 shows t he d ifferent ripening stages on tomato fruit which range from M1 to Breaker, corresponding to completely green fruit and fruit showing some pink color, respectively. Studies on the influence of level of maturity on aroma volatile profile s of ripe tomatoes (Maul and others 1998) have shown that t omatoes harvested at the mature green stage (M 3 or M 4) will ripen to hi gh quality if handled properly, while tomatoes h arvested at the M 2 stage will ripen to m oderate quality Harvesting tomatoes at M1 will have a negative effect o n chemical composition, overall sensory acceptance, and aroma volatiles profiles. The USDA (1991) provides a description for the different ripening stages of tomato based on surface c olor (Figure 2 2) This description is divided into six types (green,

PAGE 30

30 breaker, turning, pink, light red and red). The definition for each ripening stage is as follows: Green Fruit: S urface is completely green; the shade of green may vary from light to dar k Breaker : T here is a definite break in color from green to tannish yellow, pink or red on not more than 10% of the surface Turning : 10% to 30% of the surface is not green; in the aggregate, shows a definite change from green to tannish yellow, pin k, red, or a combination thereof Pink : 30% to 60% of the surface is not green; in the aggregate, shows pink or red color Light red : 60% to 90% of the surface is not green; in the aggregate, shows pinkish red or red Red: More than 90% of the surf ace is not green; in the aggregate, shows red color

PAGE 31

31 Figure 2 1. Different ripening stages on tomato fruit. Retrieved from: http://rics.ucdavis.edu/postharvest2/P roduce/ProduceFacts/Veg/tomato.html Figure 2 2 USDA Tomato Ripeness Color Chart. Photo by A. Kader. Retrieved from: http://postharvest.ucdavis.edu/Produce/ producefacts /Veg/full_tomatousdacol or.shtml

PAGE 32

32 Postharvest P ractices After harvesting, tomatoes undergo postharvest treatments to extend sh elf life. Low temperature storage, modified atmosphere packaging, and ethylene treatment are some of the techniques most used commercially A review of these techniques will be found in the following sections. Low t emperature Postharvest storage, handlin g and distribution of fruit at low temperatures is the most common and convenient approach to control ripening deterioration and maximize shelf life (Jackman and others 1992) Temperature has been determined t o have a major effect on tomato quality (Nunes 2008; 2009) Freshly harvested tomatoes are pre cooled to 15 20 C to limit decay and extend postharvest shelf life. For this purpose, f orced air cooling is the most effective practice but room cooling is more common (Suslow and Cantwell 2009) After pre cooling, optimum storage temperature will vary depending on the ripeness of the fruit at harvest. T o matoes as well as m any other climacteric fruits are susceptible to chilling injury (CI) (Jackman and others 1992) CI is a p hysiological dama g e incurred upon exposure of plant parts to low but nonfreezing temp eratures. The manifest ation of symptoms depends on temperature, time, species, and cultivar and they are only evident upon subsequent transfer of produce to non chilling temperatures (Jackman and others 1992) C onsequences of CI are failure to ripen and develop full color and flavor, premature softening, surface pitting, browning of the seeds, and increased decay (Nunes 2008; 2009) T he developmen t of mealiness and softening of fruit can increase their susceptibility to mechanical injury pathogen invasion and loss of total solids during handling and distribution (Jackman and others

PAGE 33

33 1992) Immature and m ature green tomatoes are more sensitive to chilling temperatures than pink or red tomatoes. If stored for more than 2 weeks below 10 C or f or longer than 6 to 8 days at 5 C, they may develop CI (Nunes 2008; 2009) However, it has been reported that firm ripe tomatoes can be stored at temperature between 7 to 10 C for 3 5 days with no reduction in flavor and aroma quality (Sargent and Moretti 2004) On the other hand when the production of volatiles was analyzed quantitatively on ripe fruit stored at 2 C, it showed a decrease on major flavor volatiles (Buttery and others 1987) Boukobza and others (2002) also dem onstrated that storage at low temperatures caused a significant decrease in volatile concentrations and this effect is not reversed even after 72 hours recovery. Ethylene t reatment Tomatoes are sensitive to exogenous ethylene and therefore when picked at mature green stages and exposed to ethylene tomato fruit will initiate ripening (Suslow and Cantwell 2009) Ethylene trigger s the respiratory climacteric and ripening response once the fruit s have reached their destination (Boukobza and Taylor 2002) Ethylene treatment typically extends for 24 7 2 h For commercial ripening, green toma toes should be held at 20 to 21 C 90% Relative Humidity ( RH ), and 50 L L 1 ethylene which promotes uniform ripening. When reaching breaker stage, tomatoes will no longer need gassing, since the fruit will produce sufficient ethylene to complete the ripening process (Sargent and Moretti 2004) Some times a second ethylene treatment stage possibly will follow repacking if immature green fruit were included during harvest At a temperature of 20C, tomatoes will ripen properly to ensure color development and retention of Vitamin C content. Tomatoes all owed to ripen off the vine above 25C will show more

PAGE 34

34 yellow than red colors and the texture will be softer (Suslow and Cantwell 2009) It has been shown tha t an e thylene treatment to speed ripening of green tomat oes at 20 C reduced ascorbic acid levels at the table ripe stage and did not influence flavor when compared with fruits ripened without added ethylene (Kader and others 1978b) Stern and others (1994) concluded that the effect of storage temperature and ethylene treatment on volatile development appears to be a function of final ripening temperatures and not of initial stage of ripeness and storage temperature or ethylene treatment. The authors also mentioned that th e level of volatiles developed in the stored samples never reaches that of the fruit picked at the table ripe stage which shows the flavor reduction due to low temperatures and ethylene treatment. Controlled a tmosphere s torage C ontrolled atmosphere (CA) storage offers the possibility of increasing shelf life of tomato fruit. At low oxygen levels (3 5%) ripening is delayed a long with the development of surface and stem scar mold. Sensory quality is not severely impacte d at this oxygen level, however; low o xygen ( 1% ) storage can cause off flavors, unpleasant odors and other defects, such as browning (Suslow and Cantwell 2009) Tomato Flavor Tomato flavor is a complex trait and it is affected by many factors inclu ding cultivar or variety, maturity, and environmental conditions (Madhavi and Salunkhe 1998) Furthermore harvesting and handling procedures also have an impact on the flavor o f ripened tomato fruit (Baldwin and others 2000) Fresh tomato flavor is the result of the interaction between non volatile (sugars, organic acids and minerals) and volatile components (Buttery 1993) (Buttery 1993) which are described in the following sections.

PAGE 35

35 Volatile Composition It is believed that t he most important tomato flavor volatiles are produced from a diverse set of precursors, including amino acids, lipids, an d carotenoids (Tieman and others 2006) Those compounds derived from amino acids and lipids are formed during ripening, while others are produced by the breakdown of lipid, when the tissue is damaged princ ipally through an enzyme C6 compounds (Prestage and others 1999) Several changes in physiological and biochemical characteristics occur during the development of tomato fruit (Yu and others 1967) The concentration of different volatiles will vary depend ing of the maturity stage. cis 3 hexenal, for example, exists in mature green tomato, but its concentration is 20 times greater in table ripe form. Simi lar increases occur in most other tomato volatiles as the tomato ripens (Buttery 1993) Over 400 volatiles have been identified in tomato fruit (Petro Turza 1986) but not all are important to tomato flavor (Buttery 1993) Buttery (1993) used U examine the contribution of different aroma compounds to the total odor of the tomato. Odor unit is the ratio of the com pound concentration and the odor threshold. If the ratio is greater t han 1, then the compound i s present above its threshold and consequently it sho uld contribute to the odor. About 30 compounds are present in concentrations above 1 part per billion (ppb) F rom this set 1 6 compounds have positive log odor units, and therefore t hey may contribute to tomato flavor (See Table 2 1). To confirm if the results were r easonable, the author created a synthetic mixture with 10 of the compounds with the greatest pro bability of being important to fresh tomato aroma. The compound s used were cis 3 Hexenal, cis 3 Hexe nol hexanal, 1 Penten 3 one, 3 Methylbutanal, trans 2

PAGE 36

36 Hexe nal, 6 Methyl 5 hepten 2 one, m ethyl salicylate, 2 Ionone. When analyzed by a sensory panel they concluded that the mixture had an aroma very similar to that of sliced fresh tomato. A later study (Buttery and Ling 1993) repo rted similar results, listing hexanal, cis 3 hexenal, trans 2 hexenal, hexanol, cis 3 hexenol, 2 isobutylthiazole, 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 one, ionone, geranylacetone, 1 penten 3 one, 3 methylbutanal, 3 methylbutanol, phenylethanol, 2 pentenal, acetone, etha nol, and methanol, as the most important volatile compounds in tomato aroma. Furaneol was added to the list of the 10 compounds with the highest probability of contributing to fresh tomato flavor when it was discovered that its concentration occurs above i ts threshold (Buttery and others 1995) Buttery and Ling (1993) showed the origin of each compound grouping them by the precursor they are derived from : Lipid d erived: Hexanal, hexanol, c is 3 hexenal, trans 2 hexenal cis 3 hexenol. p entanal. Amino acid derived: From leucine (3 Methylbutanol, 3 Methylbutanal, 2 Isobutylthiazole) and p henylalanine (2 Phenylethanol). Carotenoid deriv Ionone), l ycopene (6 Methyl 5 hepten 2 one, Acetone, Geranylacetone) Ethanol and methanol are found in small quantities, but their main effect was thought to be an influence on the perception of other compounds (Kazeniac and Hall 1970) I t was later found that ethanol and methanol a t concentrations present in ripe tomatoes do suppress the aroma of hexanal, 3 methylbutanol, phenylethanol, 1 penten 3 one, while promoting or enhancing trans 2 hexenal, hexanol and 3 methylbutanal

PAGE 37

37 Table 2 1. Concentrations and odor thresholds of major c omponents in fresh ripe tomatoes using a blending procedure ( Adapted from Buttery, 1993). Compound Concentration (ppb) a Odor Threshold (ppb in H 2 O) b Log Odor Units c cis 3 Hexenal 12000 0.25 3.7 Ionone 4 0.007 2.8 Hexanal 3100 4.5 2.8 Damasceone 1 0.002 2.7 1 Penten 3 one 520 1 2.7 3 Methylbutanal 27 0.2 2.1 trans 2 Hexe nal 270 17 1.2 2 Isobutylthiazole 36 3.5 1.0 1 Nitro 2 phenylethane 17 2 0.9 trans 2 Heptanal 60 13 0.7 Phenylacetaldehyde 15 4 0.6 6 Methyl 5 hepten 2 one 130 50 0.4 cis 3 Hexe nol 150 70 0.3 2 Phenylethanol d 1900 1000 0.3 3 Methylbutanol 380 250 0.2 Methyl salicylate 48 40 0.008 Geranylacetone 57 60 0.02 Cyclo citral 3 5 0.2 1 Nitro 3 methylbutane 59 150 0.4 Geranial 12 32 0.4 Linalool 2 6 0.5 1 Penten 3 ol 110 400 0.6 trans 2 Pentenal 140 1500 1 Neral 2 30 1.2 Pentanol 120 4000 1.5 Pseudoionone 10 800 1.9 Isobutyl cyanide 13 1000 1.9 Hexanol 7 500 1.9 Epoxy ionone 1 100 2.0 a.Parts (milliliters) of compound per 10 9 parts (milliliters) of fresh tomato. b.Parts (milliliters) of compound per 10 9 parts (mil liliters) of water. c. Log of odor unit value. d.Exact concentration and log U o (Odor unit) value are uncertain.

PAGE 38

38 (Tandon 1997) These interactions between ethanol, methanol and aromatic compounds may serve as enhancers of sensory perception (Tandon and oth ers 2000) While some fruits have one or two specific compounds that provide their characteristic aroma, tomato fruit has about 16 with odor units greater than zero, which makes them likely to con tribute to its flavor. N o single compound has been found in this fruit that represents ripe tomato since it is t he combination of at least 16 compounds together gives tomato its particular odor features (Baldwin and others 2000) Some researchers have focus ed their effort on finding the relationships between volatile and non volatile components and sensory descriptors to finally understand the individual contribution of each component to overall flavor (Baldwin and others 2000) Compoun ds such as 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 one and ionone are thought to provide a cis 3 methylbutanol and 1 penten 3 one. Hexanal, trans 2 hexenal, and 3 isobutylthiazole and 2 phenyl respectively. It has been suggested that a n increase in compounds contributing to floral, fruity and fresh notes and/or a decrease in compounds contributing to stale, pungent and alcohol would likely benefit tomato flavor (Tandon and others 2000) erception (Baldwin and others 1998) In other fruits, such as kiwi, the addition of sugar to pulp has been found to affect pane interaction in the mouth, which is related to memories and release of other volatiles in

PAGE 39

39 the mouth space (Marsh and others 2006) More s tudies on th e interaction of sugars, acids and volatiles in tomato have shown that the addition of sugars and acids affects the perception of aroma. When aroma volatiles are added the perception of aroma or taste is also affected for tomato fruit. This implies that s weet/ripe tomato, fruity, floral, and tropical or, viney, musty, and earthy aromas and tastes can be achieved by manipulation of volatiles, sugars, and acids (Baldwin and others 2008) Non v olatile Components Sugar s and acids, as well as salts and free amino acids are the main non volatile components of tomato flavor The sweet and sour taste s of tomatoes are caused by the suga rs and acid s present in the fruit, while b itter taste is caused by phenolics (Petro Turza 1986) Approximately 50% of the dry matter of tomatoes is composed of sug ars, mainly glucose and fructose. Sucrose is present as well, but only in trace amounts. Raffinose, arabinose, xylose, g alactose, and my oinositol (sugar alcohol) are also present i n small quantities in the fruit (Petro Turza 1986) As described by Kader and others (1977), t he quantity of reducing sugars in tomato presents a positive correlatio n with sweetness perception and soluble solids (SS) conten t. The sugar content increases significantly as the fruit develops, but the ratio of glucose to fructose decreases slowly. Depending on the variety, total sugar content of a ripe tomato is between 1 .7 and 4.7%, and the ratio of glucose to fructose has been found to be around 1 (Petro Turza 1986) During fruit development light has the greatest effect on sugar concentration. The sugar concentration is dir ectly proportional to the amou nt of sunlight the plant is exposed to and thus, the more sunlight is absorbed by the fruit, the more sugar is produced (Petro Turza 1986)

PAGE 40

40 Citric and malic acid s together repres ent about 10% of the dry content of tomatoes. Other acids (formic, acetic, lactic, mevalonic, pyruvic acid, trans aconitic, dihydroxy tartaric acid, fumaric, malonic, oxalacetic, oxalic, 2 oxoglutaric, succinic, tartaric, galacturonic acid, and quinic acid ) are found in lower quantities During ripening and growth, the acid content increases up to the breaker stage, but later it declines (Petro Turza 1986) This is also the case for ascorbic acid, which increas es with the maturity of fruit but decline s slightly in the later (red and red ripe) stages of maturation (Dalal and others 1965) The effects of adding sugar and acid to fresh tomatoes on the response by descriptive an d consumer panels were studied. Regression analysis indicated that increasing total sugar and acid l evels did not affect the impact of fresh tomato flavor however it did significantly affect flavor acceptability. ( Malundo and others 1995b) This study is relevant because it proposes that there is an optimum of acid content in tomato for preferred flavor quality, but when this level is reached and there is an increase it will decrease consumer acc eptability. This st udy questioned the recommendations made by Kader (1977), wh o su ggested that increasing sugar content and acid concentrations in tomato would improve flavor. Free amino acids account for between 2 and 2.5% of the total dry matter content in tomatoes (Petro Turza 1986) Glutamate amino butyric, glutamine, and aspartate are the four amino acids that compose approximately 80% of the total amino acids in tomato (Kader and othe rs 1978a) However, the content of amino acids in tomato is highly variable depending upon environmental conditions, cultivar and ripeness stage.

PAGE 41

41 When studying the influence of fruit ripeness stage at harvest on amino acid compos ition and flavor Kader (1 978) showed that fruit harvested at the table ripe stage contained more alanine and less glutamic acid than those picked green or at the breaker stage and ripened at 20 C to table ripe. P anelists did not detect flavor differences when monopotassium glutama te was added to table ripe fruits. Finally, the author concluded that differences in amino acid composition related to ripeness stage when picked do not seem to be directly associated to differences in flavor. Flavor P erception and Differences b etween Subj ects Humans consume food for mainly two reasons: nutritional benefit and pleasure. Both processes are associated with the interaction of food components with particular receptors in the body (Taylor and Hort 2004) A cceptance of sweet and rejection of bitter appear to be hard wired, but the affect with odors depends more on experience (Bartoshuk and Beauchamp 1994) N utritional stimuli on human behavior are mostly u nderstood, for example, the effect of carbohydrate consumption and hydrolysis, blood glucose levels and their consequences on appetite However, this is not the case for flavor stimuli. Flavor perception depends on several senses (modalities), but a compre hensive list of these senses is rarely provided in the literature (Taylor and Hort 2004) Flavor experience depends on the combination of responses from the senses and the psychological handling of these i nputs (Reineccius 2006) sensory experiences: true taste, retronasal olfaction, and oral somatosensation. True taste refers to salty, sweet, sour, and bitter. Retronasal olfaction is the pe rception of volatiles from inside the oral cavity and finally, oral somatosensation is the perception of

PAGE 42

42 touch, temperature and pain (Duffy and Bartoshuk 2000) Other authors also mention ed that additional inputs such as (Duffy and Bartoshuk 2000) food matrix, volatile and nonvolatile release, composition mastication, saliva, hearing etc., influences flavor perception (Reinecciu s 2006) The perception of taste comes from specialized taste receptors located in the mouth, mainly found on the tongue (sweet, sour, bitter, and salty) (Reineccius 2006) These sensations are perceived because o f the reactions of sugars or polyalcohols, hydronium ions, sodium ions, glucosides, and alkaloids with receptors located in certain regions of the tongue (Baldwin and others 2000) Some studies have suggested that of the four qualities that humans recognize salty and sour tastes require the interaction with ion channels in the membran e of receptor cells while sweet and bitter compounds bind to receptor proteins (Bartoshuk and Beauchamp 1994) The nerves in the tongue are responsible for trigeminal responses (chemesthesis) such as texture, temperature, irritation, carbonation, and chemical heat from hot peppers (Baldwin and others 2000) As mentioned before taste interacts with olfaction, which is the result from the interaction of volatile s from food components with olfactory receptors in the nasal cavity. Olfaction can be orthonasal (stimulus enters directly from the nose by sniffing the food) or retronasal (odor stimulus enters the oral cavity by eating the food). However, taste interacts with retronasal olfaction but not with orthonasal olfaction (Duffy and Bartoshuk 2000) The reactions be tween the odor receptors and the volatiles coming from the food are similar to an enzyme substrate model (De Rovira 1997) Some of the complications with odorants come from their structure and the interaction with t he receptors. D ifferent

PAGE 43

43 theories about the relationship between volatile features and od or quality have been developed, however, the molecular basis of odor perception remains unclear (Nollet and Boylston 2007) l is complicated not only by the differences in volatile structure and their interaction with the food matrix and the olfaction system but also the variation in the tasting abilities among subjects. Bartoshuk discovered that there are diffe rent taster groups (Bartoshuk 1991) She called them supertasters, who are those who experience the most intense taste sensations, medium tasters who perceive average taste intensities, and low or weak tasters w ho perceive the weakest taste sensations. low or weak tasters (Bartoshuk and others 2004) which refers to the big differences in perception between these two groups. More about the discovery and characteristics of these groups is discussed in the next section of this document. V ariability between subjects in taste perception is also linked to the occurrenc e of ageusia (taste loss), hypogeusia (decrease in taste) and dysgeusia (abnormal taste) (Nelson 1998) There are also disorders that affect the olfaction system, such as hyposmia (reduced sense of smell) or anosmi a (loss of sense of smell) These conditions may play a role in quality of li fe because of taste changes and decreased pleasure from eating (Gaines 2010) Differences in Taste Perception and i ts Measurement Differe nces in tasting abilities were first observed by Fox in 1931, who measured ability to taste phenylthiocarbamide (PTC). Some individuals were able to taste the bitterness of this compound ( PTC tasters), while others were not able to taste

PAGE 44

44 it ( P TC nontasters). Fox reported that from a group of colleagues, 60% were PTC tasters and 40% were PTC nontasters Later studies showed that the ability to taste PTC resulted from a dominant allele (Snyder 1931) Individu als that carry two recessive alleles are PTC nontasters and those who carry one or both dominant alleles are PTC tasters (Blakeslee 1932) Later on, different studies led to the conclusion that supertasting i nvolves variation produced by individual genes, but more importantly from a high density of fungiform papillae (Duffy and others 2004) which are the structures that contain the taste buds of the anterior tongue (Bartoshuk 2000) Supertasters and others groups have been studied for several years and many of the characteristics of how each group perceives food have been identified Supertasters, for example, perceive th e most intense bitterness and sweetness, as well as saltiness and sourness. They also perceive the most intense burn from oral irritants, and the most intense tactile sensations from viscous solutions. The latter two sensations are supposedly also perceive d in higher intensities for supertasters because taste buds of fungiform papillae are innervated by the trigeminal nerve (responsible for pain and touch sensations) and also by the chorda tympani nerve, which is responsible for taste (Bartoshuk and others 1998) These sensory differences influence food choice and health (Bartoshuk 2000) This is the case for the alcohol consumption pattern between these groups Since supertasters have more fungiform papillae than other individuals, they also have been found to dislike alcohol. This dislike is justified by the fact that supertasters perceive more bitterness than others and alcohol is often associated with bitter flavor s (Duffy and others 2004)

PAGE 45

45 The findings about genetic variation in taste were facilitated by the development of psychological techniques that allow the comparisons across individuals. However, the knowledge of th e existence of this genetic variation also contributed to the development of these methods (Bartoshuk 2000) At the beginning of l ast century, threshold measurement was the most popular technique in sensory stu dies. However, psychophysics has advanced significantly beyond the se measurements and has developed new techniques that are promising in terms of measuring perceived intensity and to provide accurate comparisons across individuals (Bartoshuk 2000) These techniques ar e based on the validation of a g eneralized Labeled Magnitude Scale (gLMS) for taste comparisons across supertasters and others (Bartoshuk and others 2004) as well as the use of the gLMS as a hedonic scale for food preferences (Bartoshuk and Snyder 2004) Labeled scales are used to compare across groups. The labels are adjectives to The problem with these scales it is not the relative distances among descriptors, since they are constant, but that the absolute perceived intensities of the descriptors vary depending on the context. For example, a very strong rose odor is weaker than a "very strong" headache (Bartoshuk and others 2004) Bart oshuk and others (2004) described this situation as context This compr ession or expansion is also caused by variation in individual experience and genetic variation ( e.g., PROP supertasters, medium tasters and weak tasters ). In this situation, taste descriptors represent different absolute perceived intensities which makes t he comparison across the groups invalid (Bartoshuk and others 2004) The solution for this problem was

PAGE 46

46 which consists of asking subjects to match tastes intensities to a standard not related t o taste (sound, for example). Since this approach provides valid comparisons, it was the base for constructing a labeled scale with descriptors unrelated to taste (Bartoshuk and others 2004) The gLMS is a modified version of an existing scale, the Labeled Magnitud e Scale (LMS), which was devised by Green, Shaffer, and Gilmore in 1993 to measure oral sensations. The LMS was the first scale to use inable Oral (Bartoshuk and Snyder 2004) However, the labels of this scale mean different absolute intensities for supertasters, medium tasters and weak tasters (Bartoshuk and Snyder 2004) To solve this issue, Bartoshuk and others (2000) changed the instructions and change was made, the differences between the groups ( PROP supe rtasters, medium tasters and weak tasters) became the same size as the results obtaine d using magnitude matching when sound was used as the standard (Bartoshuk 2000) This scale was named general LMS (gLMS ) (Bartoshuk and Snyder 2004) The most important assumption that is made with this scale is that absolute intensity represented by the top of the scale is not related to the variation in taste, which mak es the top of the scale a valid sensory ruler as long as the strongest imaginable sensation of any kind is (Bartoshuk and Snyder 2004) The gLMS was first used with anchors along the line to provide ratio properties to the scale. However, Snyder, Puentes, Sims and Bartoshuk (2008) showed that if the

PAGE 47

47 anchors were eliminated and the top of the scale was howed less noise. The scale that is been used recently ranges from 0 (No sensation at all) to 100 (Strongest Sensation of any kind ever (see Bartoshuk 2000 and Bartoshu k and Snyder for a discussion on the evolution of the scales and important facts about across group s and across subject s comparison]. The gLMS was modified to measure hedonic responses as well. The current Hedonic gLMS ranges from 100 (Strongest Disliking of any kind ever experienced), 0 (Neutral), and 100 (Strongest liking of any kind ever experien ced). Other S tudies D espite the multiple studies on tomato chemistry, it is still unclear what characteristics are desirable in a good tomato. Efforts in tryi ng to understand the complexity of predicting sensory descriptors as a function of volatile and nonvolatile components was done by Abegaz and others (2004). Their objective was to determine the effect of partitioning taste components from flavor during des criptive analysis on prediction of sensory descriptors as a function of volatile and nonvolatile compounds. The partitioning technique involved the separation of the taste from flavor components by blocking the nose for taste components (sweet, salty, sour and bitter) with nose clips followed by evaluation of the aromatic and chemical feeling factors when unplugging the nose. Volatile analysis was done by GC and the components analyzed were those published b y Buttery in 1993. This study concluded that tast e descriptors were perception. Aroma descriptors were more pronounced when following taste perception than when evaluated simultaneously with taste descriptors. Regression models were

PAGE 48

48 more effective at predicting sensory descriptors when taste descriptors were partitioned than when they were not partitioned (Abegaz and others 2004) Also, different aroma profiling techniques have been evaluat ed to map consumer liking of tomatoes (Berna and others 2005) The volatile data considered in this study consisted of the most important volatiles in tomatoes according to Buttery (1993). During the study 54 Flem ish consumers were asked to rate overall liking of the eight varieties evaluated. The study did not inquire about liking of other characteristics, such as texture, or intensity perception of sweetness, sourness, and other s However, the authors found a hig h correlation between aroma prof ile and acceptance. This study also reported four different segments of consumers that have different liking characteristics. Some studies addressed the interaction of volatiles, sugars and acids on perception of tomato aro ma and flavor (Baldwin and others 2008) leading to the conclusion that the addition of sugar decreases the perception of sour and bitter tastes, and citrus and green aroma, while enhancing the perception of flavors associated with ripe, tropical, and aromatic tomatoes. Other research has characteriz ed three different varieties (traditional types and hybrids) of Spanish tomatoes using aroma composition and discriminant analysis (Al onso and others 2009) For volatile analysis, this study evaluated the volatile compounds published by Buttery (1993) as being the most important compounds for tomato flavor. The sensory analysis was done with 30 consumers using a scale that ranged from 0 (none) to 10 (extremely high) to measure acceptability The authors showed that traditional tomatoes have higher contents of most of the volatiles studied and that they were also more accepted by the consumer panel.

PAGE 49

49 Most recently, Sinesio and others (201 0) conducted a study about sensory quality of fresh French and Dutch market tomatoes, which was a preference mapping study with Italian consumers. This study provides a very good insight of the different preferences that existed in this population. Sixteen tomato cultivars were described in terms of their sensory properties, co nsumer preferences, and physicochemical measurements. These varieties were evaluated by 179 consumers, who were plotted in nd the reasons for the choice. A hierarchical analysis of the clusters allowed four segments with different preferences within the sampled Italian consumers The authors concluded that both texture and flavor descriptors were important drivers of consumer preferences, but the relevance of individual descriptors to model tomato liking was different for each consumer segment. One of the issues with experiments conducted in the past is the limitation of the volatile analysis. These studies have examined only those volatiles (about 17 compounds) that were published more than ten years ago as being important for tomato flavor not taking into account the great volatile variability in the fruit and among varieties It is important to mention that these volatiles were determined as important based on threshold methods. Threshold methods were used in the past to identify those compounds that were important in terms of their log odor u nit s However, thresholds only provide a very limited view of the capacities of our senses. Threshold measures are claimed to be rela ted to a variety of problems and also to fail describing an accurate image of suprathreshold sensitivity (Bartoshuk 1978) Furthermore there is a failure to d etermine consistent volatile patterns linked with great flavor (Scott 2001) Questions still remain about the possibility of interaction

PAGE 50

50 between volatiles not only in the tomato matrix, but also during eating. It has b e en proven than some compounds (e thanol and methanol) affect the perception of other compounds. However, it has not been proven if this is the case for the other volatiles present in tomatoes. In addition to this issue, differences between taste abilities betwe en subjects have not been taken into account in previous studies. The way every person perceive s flavor is critical when it comes to food preferences. It is necessary to understand patterns of food acceptance between these groups to further understand food selection variability between supertasters and others (Duffy and Bartoshuk 2000)

PAGE 51

51 CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHOD S Tomatoes For this project, fifty varieties of heirloom and modern commercial tomatoes we re cultivated at the University of Florida by the staff of the Horticultural Science Department. Tomatoes were harve day s before sensory evaluation and no postharvest treatment was applied. The tomatoes were washed in 10% bleach solution followed by several water rinses. The samples were kept at room temperature until testing. The first segment of this study was conducted i n February and March of 2010 [Harvest 1 (H1)] T he tomatoes used for during this season were grow n u n der greenhouse conditions. The second section was completed during the months of June and July of 2010 [Harvest 2 (H2)] Th ese tomatoes were cul tiv ated in a field environment The varieties tasted during both seasons can be found in Table 3 1 and 3 2. Panelists Ninety two and eighty six panelists were recruited for H1 and H2, respectively. The recruiting was done by e mails, announcements and signs around University of Florida (UF) campus. The panel was comprised mostly of students and staff from UF. Fo r H2, 51 of the panelists were also in the H2 panels and 35 new panelists were recruited following the procedure described above. Every panelist consented to participate by signing a form previously approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB).

PAGE 52

52 Questi onnaire Development The questionnaire was developed to inquire about both hedonic responses and intensity attributes of each tomato variety. The test included the following sections : Demographic questions, development of the Hedonic gLMS and practice quest ions, overall and texture liking assessment, gLMS development and practice questions, sensory attributes intensity measurement, solutions (sweet, salty, sour, and bitter) tasting. The questionnaire is presented in Appendix A and described in more detail in the subsequent sections. Panelists Training A training session was held to familiarize the panelists with both the gLMS and the H edonic gLMS scales and also, to provide an idea on how the test was structured. At the beginning of the session panelists were asked to give written consent (IRB approved) to perform the test and a registration code was assigned to each panelist. This registration code remained the same for the rest of the study. Panelists were scheduled to come in groups of 10 and it took from 4 0 to 50 minutes to complete the training. Panelists were placed in individual booths equipped with a co mputer data entry system where they answered the questionnaire using Compusense Five 3.6 Sensory Analysis Software for Windows. An instructor provided verbal instructions to the panelists throughout the test. Once in the booth, panelists registered with the assigned code and then proceed ed to answer demographic questions. One known variety (Campari) and four unknown varieties (Premium, Beefsteak, Tomato o n the Vine, and Plum) were used

PAGE 53

53 during the training session. These were obtained at a local retail store the day before the training session. Each sample was assigned t wo 3 digit random code s for both hedonic and attributes intensity evaluation. Tomatoes were chopped into fourths or halves depending on the size of the variety and each panelist was provided with two pieces for tasting The fruit pieces were randomized so that the panelists received pieces that did not come from the same fruit. The first sc ale used for this test was the Hedonic gLMS (Figure 3 1 ) With this scale the panelists rated overall liking and texture liking of each sample. In order to use this scale, each individual had to create his ow n scale. O n this scale, the center at zero repre value to the left of the scale corresponds to Disl Liking and Disliking of any kind that they have ever experienced. Some examples were provided for both cases. Once they identified their own experiences, they recorded them in the computer. Next, they answered questions about the liking and disliking of a variety of experiences from memory using a line scale. The panelists rated from memory the experience of being with their loved ones, listening to their favorite music, eat ing their favorite food, least favorite food, the most intense annoyance and anger they have ever experienced, and best and worst tomato they have ever tasted. Then, they received five tomato samples and judge how much they liked or disliked each sample in terms of overall liking and texture.

PAGE 54

54 The second part of the test was intended to measure intensities of sweetness, sourness, saltiness, umami and overall tomato flavor intensity of the samples. To accomplish this purpose, the panelists had to develop a se cond scale, the gLMS (Figure 3 2 ) The intensity scale is graded from 0 (no sensation at all) to 100 (the strongest sensation of any kind that they have ever experienced). The panelists were asked to identify and record the strongest sensation of any kind that they had ever experienced. each tomato. Each person rated the loudest sound ever heard, loudness of a conversation, brightness of a well lit room, brightest light ev er seen, loudness of a whisper, and brightness of a dimly lit restaurant. These experiences were in cluded as part of the test as practice before they rated the samples. T omatoes have been widely investigated because of their glutamate content. For this re ason panelists with this attribute, a sample of monosodium glutamate (MSG) was provided at a concentration of 10 mM in water Saltiness and umami intensities of the sample were evalua ted using the gLMS scale. Panelists were provided with a second set of the same tomato samples coded differently and in random order. Keyboard entry was used to judge the intensity of sweetness, sourness, saltiness, bitterness, umami, and overall tomato f lavor. In order to evaluate the differences between high tasters and tasters 1 M ( molar ) NaCl solution, 1 M sucrose solution, 0.032 M citri c acid solution, and 0.001 M quinine solution, were served in 2 oz containers at room temperature to each pa nelist Panelists used the gLMS scale to evaluate the intensities of the samples. With these

PAGE 55

55 ratings, an average of the four solutions was obtained and a pooled mean was obtained as well. Evaluation of the Sample After the training, eight sessions were sc heduled four sessions for each harvest. The varieties tasted in H1 and H1 are shown in Table 3 1 and Table 3 2, respectively. Varieties tasted in more than one session were codified with their name followed by a number This nu mber corresponds to the time each variety was tasted For insta nce, Alisa Craig 1 was tasted the first time in Panel 1 and it was tasted the second time (Alisa Craig 2) during Panel 3. Subjects kept the same panelist number throughout this study and an average of 85 panelists evalua ted per session. Panelists evaluated 6 samples for both hedonic and intensity aspects. The tomatoes were sliced into wedges or halves, as described previously, depending on the size of the sample, and each panelist was provided with two pieces of each samp le for evaluation. The samples were presented following Biochemical A nalysis The biochemical analysis was performed by the staff at the Horticultural Science Department of the University of Florida. S oluble solids (Brix) and pH were measured using a refractometer and pH meter, respectively. G lucose, fructose, citric and malic acid, as well as glutamate content were measured in every sample. For these tests, p ooled tomato fruit were homogenized in a blender for 30 s and frozen at 80 C until analysis. Samples were thawed, centrifuged at 16 000 g for 5 min. The supernatant was

PAGE 56

56 analyzed for these components using analysis kits (R Biopharm, Marshall, MI) according to the m anu V olatile analysis was done the same day as the taste panel was conducted. Three replicates were analyzed per sample The samples were chopped and 100 grams (g) were placed in glass tubes (Figure 3 3 ) A ir filtered through a hydroca rbon trap (Agilent, Palo Alto, CA) flowed through the tubes for one hour The volatiles were collected on a Super Q column and nonyl acetate was added as an internal standard. The volatiles were eluted with methylene chloride and separated on an Agilent (P alo Alto, CA) DB 5 column and analyzed on an Agilent 6890N gas chromatograph with retention times compared to known standards (Sigma Aldrich, St Louis, MO). Volatile levels were calculated as ng g 1 FW h 1. Identified volatile peaks were confirmed by Gas C h romatography Mass Spectrometry ( GC MS ) (Tieman and others, 2005). Statistical Analysis Taste panel d ata were collected using Compusense Five 3.6 Sensory Analysis Software for Windows. Once collected, the data were transferred in to an EXCEL spreadsheet. A Difference (LSD). Means of all the attributes evaluated for each variety were obtained and biochemical data was a dded to the data set A correlation matrix was also obtained and regression lines were obtained for every significant correlation. The data set was sorted into high tasters or ) ) To determine the level in which panelist s perceive the intensity of the four basic tastes

PAGE 57

57 ( sweet, sour, salty and bitter), variable s were created. To decide whether the panelists rating s of the four solutions was obtained for each individual. A pooled mean of 63 igh tas he people whose average scored above 63 is a to lover or clas sification ratios was 0.64 and it class on tomato se ratios were above omato lover s those, whose ratios were belo w thi on that by using this ratio, the d ata were normalized, showing the proportion of how much people like tomatoes compared to their favorite food. A nalysis of variance (AOV) was performed on the 50 varieties of tomatoes tasted for all measured attributes Differences were considered significant at an alpha level of less than or equal to 0.05. Correlation and regression analyse s were done on each group to identify relations hips between o verall l iking and sensory attributes (texture liking and sweetness, sourness, bitterness, saltiness, umami, and tomato flavor intensity) as wel l as with biochemical components. R egression lines were plotted on every correlation using

PAGE 58

58 Figure 3 1. Hedonic gLMS (General Labeled Magnitud e Scale) used to measure affective responses. Figure 3 2. gLMS (General Labeled Magnitud e Scale) used to measure intensity of different attribute s.

PAGE 59

59 Figure 3 3 Tomato samples in glass tubes w h ere air flowed through for one hour.

PAGE 60

60 Table 3 1. Varieties tasted in H 1 ( sessions 1 to 4 ) Sessions were conducted on February and March of 2010. Panel 1 Panel 2 Panel 3 Panel 4 Ailsa Craig 1 Bloody Butcher 1 Ailsa Craig 2 Aunt Ruby's German Green Cherry Roma Chadwick Cherry Bloody Butche 2 r Brandywine Porter Large Red Cherry Giant Belgium Dixie Golden Giant Red Pear Matina Marmande VFA Store B Tommy Toe Peacevine Cherry St ore B Red Calabash Store A Cherry Berries Stupice Thessaloniki Thessaloniki Thai Pink Cherry Sto re A Cherry Table 3 2. Varieties tasted in H2 ( sessions 5 to 8 ) Sessions were conducted on November and December of 2010 Panel 5 Panel 6 Panel 7 P anel 8 ClearPinkSlicer AilsaCraig 3 GreenZebra LA1482 StoreB 1 AmishSalad KentuckyBeefsteak LemonDrop SkorospelkaRed BloodyButcher 3 StoreB 3 Matt'sWildCherry ThreeSisters GardenPeach St.Pierre MexicoMidget TigerellaOrange GulfStateMarket SuperSioux Sto reB 4 YellowPerfection StoreB 2 Zapotec YellowJellyBean

PAGE 61

61 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION General Results Overall Liking values ranged from 33.67 to 3.51 o n the Hedonic gLMS corresponding to Cherry Roma and Marmande VFA, respectively From the varieties tasted, Cherry Roma, Matina, Ailsa Craig 1, Red Calabash and Ailsa Craig 2 obtained the highest ratings in overall liking. Conversely Cherry, and Marmande VFA were the least liked varieties during this experiment (Tab le 4 1). Texture liking ranged from 33.96 to 2.68, for Cherry Roma and Marmande VFA varieties respectively Sweetness intensity was rated between 26.37 (Chadwick Cherry) and 7.43 (StoreB1).Sourness intensity ranged from 29.37 (Green Zebra) to 7.59 (Store B4) Saltiness was also rated and ranged from 13.83 (Large Red Cherry) to 7.2 (Yellow Jelly Bean). On the other hand, bitterness intensity was rated between 15.56 (Stupice) to 4.29 (StoreB4). Umami intensity ranged from 16.35 (Matina) to 8.34 (LA1482) and tomato flavor intensity from 35.05 (Matina) to 18.58 (Zapotec). Cherry Roma is a mid season variety that produces plum cherry fruits of about one inch diameter In this study, it obtained the highest rating in overall liking (33.67) and also in texture l iking (33.96) It ranked fourth in sweetness intensity, eighth in sourness and second in tomato flavor intensity. Regarding its chemical composition, i t was high in glucose, fructose, and soluble solids in comparison with the other varieties studied. It al so contained the high est amounts of some of the volatile compounds in this group of tomatoes. For instance, it contained 37.37 ng/gfw/hr of isovaleronitrile compared to Store B5, which contained 1.81 ng/gfw/hr of the same compo und The

PAGE 62

62 chemical compositio n of this variety, as well as of the other varieties tasted, can be found in Appendix B. Marmande VFA was the least liked variety. It produces large, firm, scarlet red, and round fruits. During this experiment it obtained the lowest rating in overall likin g (3.51) and texture liking ( 2.68). It ranked thirty five on sweetness intensity, forty six in sourness and forty nine in tomato flavor intensity This variety had lower amounts of sugars, a cids, and volatiles, which made it very bland and thus unattracti ve to the panelists This variety also show ed low concentrations of certain volatile s such as isovaleronitrile. This compound was found in a concentration of 10.73 ng/gfw/hr compared to 37.37 ng/gfw /hr of the same compound in the Cherry Roma variety. The chemical composition that these fifty varieties represent is very diverse. The standard deviation of each compound can be found on the third row of Table Appendix B. These values show large variation there the average in each compound. A good example is 3 methyl 1 butanol, which ranges from 2.5 1 ng/gfw/hr to 155.28 ng/gfw/hr, corresponding to Kentucky Beefsteak and Store A2 varieties, respectively (See Appendix B). A nalysis for All Panelists Combined Correlations between Overall Liking and Sensory Variabl es Table 4 1 shows all the varieties tasted and the ir ratings for overall liking, texture liking, sweetness, sourness, saltiness, bitterness, umami, and tomato flavor intensity. The LSD value for mean separation for each attribute can be found in the secon d row of each colum n. The significant correlations between overall liking and the variables analyzed can be found in Table 4 2.

PAGE 63

63 From all the se sensory variables overall liking was correlated significantly with texture liking (r=0.712) sweetness (r=0.780 ) umami (r=0.361) and tomato flavor intensity (r=0.601) and negatively correlated with bitterness (r= 0.339) No correlation was found between liking and sourness and saltiness, which may indicate that these two components are not critical to increase ac ceptability in these varieties Regression lines for the significant correlations were obtained and are shown in Figures 4 1, 4 2, and 4 3. T exture is definitely an important attribute in tomato acceptability The importance of texture was also shown by S inesio and others (2010), who concluded that texture in one of the most important drivers of consumer preferences in tomatoes. Another study found texture to be a common characteristic in different consumers segments. Regardless of other unique characteris tics of these groups, texture was important for all segments (L and Ledauphin 2006) T omato flavor i s obviously an important characteristic in likeability. As its intensity increases, acceptability also increases a nd thus a variety of tomato is liked better The importance of tomato flavor was also found by L and Ledauphin (2006) and Sinesio and others (2010) who have shown that good flavor represent s increases in acceptability. In the case of sweetness and umami both were found related to overall liking. T his is not true for bitterness, which had a negative influence o n liking. As bitterness increases, likeability decreases. Acceptance of sweetness and rejection of bitterness is expected since they appear to be hard wired (Bartoshuk and Beauchamp 1994) (Klein and Thorne 2007) A good

PAGE 64

64 example for this stimulus is monosodium glutam ate (MSG) and it is also described as the taste of protein. Glutamate is abundant in foods such as tomat oes, green vegetables, and fish (De Araujo and others 2003) Umami has been also related to saltiness perce ption. A research study in 2002 showed that from 109 subjects, 73% were able to discriminate between the taste o f NaCl and MSG. However, 27% did not. In this study, a positive correlation between saltiness and umami was found ( p =0.0013) (Figure 4 3 ), whi ch led us to suspect that s ubjects were not distinguishing between these two characteristics. It is also important to mention that these values ar e based on sensory data obtained from a consumer panel, and that the differences between tasting abilities or co nsumption behavior can influence how the subjects perceived these attributes. Also, for regular consumers is very difficult to identify specific attributes, such as umami, without intensive training. Correlations between Overall Liking and Nonvolatile C om pounds It is well known that tomato flavor depends greatly not just on volatile compounds, but also on nonvolatile components and the interaction between these two (Petro Turza 1986) G lucose, fructose, solubl e solids, glutamic acid, malic acid, citric acid, as well as the ratios of sugar (glucose plus fructose) to acid (malic plus citric acid) and citric to malic acid ratios were evaluated. The Pearson correlation coefficient s and the probability ( p ) value s o f the significant correlations are shown in Table 4 2 Glucose (r=0.665) fructose (r=0.643) and soluble s olids (r=0.530) were positively correlated with overall liking The regression lines for these compounds are shown in Figures 4 4, and 4 5 As the co ncentration s of these compounds i ncreases, acceptability increases Previous studies have shown that liking of tomato flavor can

PAGE 65

65 probably be improved by varying the amount of sugar and acids (Malundo and others 1995 a) Other studies have addressed the effect of sugars on aroma perception. Sugars added to tomato puree were found to reduce the perception of overall aroma, ripe tomato aroma, and ripe tomato taste perception (Ba ldwin and Thompson 2001) However, acceptability was not measured in a consumer panel and thus, the effect of these changes in aroma perception by the addition of sugar was not assessed. In this study, the relationship of sweetness intensity and tomato fl avor intensity (both measured by panelists ) (Figure 4 5 ) was found significant at an alpha ( ) of 0.05. The Pearson correla tion coefficient was 0.492. This may suggest that sweetness in creases tomato flavor intensity, which is important to improve acceptab ility of tomatoes. No relationship was found between glutamic acid content and acceptabilit y. Um ami, the characteristic associated with glutamic acid content, was related to overall liking (r=0.361) However, the lack of correlation between glutamic acid and overall liking, and the positive correlation between umami and saltiness, led us to believe that the consumers were not distinguishing between these two characteristics. On the other hand, m alic acid, citric acid, and their ratio (malic:citric) were no t significantly correlated with overall liking of tomatoes. The lack of correlation between acids (malic and citric) and overall liking validates the absence of correlation between perceived sourness intensity and overall liking, as mentioned in the previo us section. Earlier studies suggested that there is an optimal acid concentration to achieve increments in consumer acceptabilit y Acid levels above this optimum level could have a negative effect in acceptability of tomatoes (Malundo and others 1995a)

PAGE 66

66 Conversely the ratio of sugar to acid (sugar:acid) was positively correlated (r=0.566) and thus, a s the ratio increases, acceptability increases (Figure 4 6 ) However, earlier reports challenge the assumption that an incre ase in sugar and acid concentrations will improve tomato flavor (Malundo and others 1995a) It would be tempting to conclude that the best way to improve acceptability in tomatoes is by increasing sugar con ten t. However, flavor is a complicated trait that depends on more than one factor and therefore o ther variables, such as volatile components, need to be considered when trying to improve tomato flavor. Moreover, sugar levels can be increased only to a cer tain level without affecting production Several efforts have been aimed at increasing sugar concentration in different hybrids, but the possibilities of more increases in sugar amount s in tomato are limited by a reduction in yield (Klee 2011) If changes in sugar concentration are not practical there is still the opportunity to change volatile concentrations to achieve good acceptability without affecting yield. Correlations between Overall Liking and Volatile Comp ounds From the 62 volatiles analyzed, 25 were positively correlated with overall liking When grouped according their precursors, five come from amino acids, five from carotenoids, eight from lipids, one from phenylpropanoid and six from unknown pathway s (Baldwin and others 2000 ; Tieman 2011) In the follow ing paragraphs the figure number of the regression lines for these compounds can be found in parenthesis following the n ame of the volatile. Amino acids: Isovaleronitrile (Fig ure 4 5 ) isovaleraldehyde (Figure 4 7 ) 3 methyl 1 butanol ( Figure 4 7 ) isovaleric acid ( Figure 4 8 ) and phenylacetaldehyde ( Figure 4 8 ) Carotenoids: 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 ol (Figure 4 9 ) 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 one ( Figure 4 9 ) ionone ( Figure 4 10 ) cyclocitral ( Figure 4 10 ) geranial ( Figure 4 11 )

PAGE 67

67 Lipids: 1 penten 3 one (Figure 4 11 ) trans 2 heptenal ( Figure 4 12 ) 1 penten 3 ol ( Figure 4 12 ) cis 2 penten 1 ol ( Figure 4 13 ) trans 2 pentenal ( F igure 4 13 ) trans 3 hexen 1 ol ( Figure 4 14 ) 3 pentanone ( Figure 4 14 ) and 1 pentanol ( Figure 4 15 ) Phenylpropanoids : B enzyl cyanide ( Figure 4 15 ) Unknown: Nonyl aldehyde (Figure 4 16 ) cis 4 decenal ( Figure 4 16 ) methional ( Figure 4 17 ) 2,5 dimethy l 4 hydroxy 3(2H) furanone ( Figure 4 17 ) 1 octen 3 one ( Figure 4 18.A) and benzothiazole ( Figure 4 18 ) Negative correlations were only found with 2 methylbutyl acetate and isobutyl acetate (Figure 4 19 ) While 2 methylbutyl acetate has been found to be derived from amino acids, the pathway in which isobutyl acetate is produced is still unknown The negative effect of 2 methylbutyl acetate o n acceptability in this study differs greatly from the effect of the same compound in apples. 2 methylbutyl acetate is one of the most abundant compounds in Gala apples and it has been found to be positively correlated (Young and others 1996) Isobutyl acetate is a common solvent with med ium volatility. A t low concentrations it is known to p rovide fruity ester odor, but as its concentrations increases the odor becomes unpleasant. This compound is known to be important for the characteristic flavor of bananas (Jordan and others 2001) Most of the studies conducted on tomato volatiles have focused on the effect of about 17 volatiles on tomato flavor. These compounds were reported to be important to tomato flavor based on threshold analysis and odor uni ts (Table 2 1). In this study only six of those volatiles were found to be significantly correlated with overall liking: 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 one ionone 1 penten 3 one (ethyl vinyl ketone) 3 methylbutanal (Isovaleraldehyde) 3 methylbutanol (3 methyl 1 butanol) and 2 pentenal ( trans 2 pentenal) Research on the impact of carotenoid derived volatiles on tomato flavor has

PAGE 68

68 shown that Cyclocitral and Ionone presented the strongest correlations with overall ac ceptability from the carotenoid derived comp ounds (Vogel and others 2010) Positive correlations with these two compounds were also found in this study. However, the same paper reported negative correlations between overall acceptability and guaiacol and methylsalicylate, which were not observed in in this study. Interestingly, none of the lipid derived volatiles (hexanal, cis 3 hexenal, trans 2 hexenal, hexyl alcohol, and cis 3 hexen 1 ol) reported by Buttery and Ling (1993) as important to tomato flavor were correlated with overall liking. This lack of correlation between these volatiles and acceptability of tomato es highlights the importance of reevaluating the t hreshold method. Thresholds only provide a very limited view of the capacities of our senses. Threshold m easurements are claimed to be related to a variety of problems and also to fail to describe an accurate image of suprathreshold sensitivity (Bartoshuk 1978) The individual a roma properties of some of the compounds included in this study have been investigated, while the contributions of others to the characteristic aroma of tomato are yet to be studied. Studies on spiked tomato homogenates or puree have generated a series of terms to describe each compound (Baldwin and others 2008) : 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 one: sweet, floral ionone : floral, sweet 1 pente n 3 one: f res h, sweet, fruity taste, grassy 3 methylbutanal: stale rotten 3 me thylbutanol: sweet fresh 2 pentenal: stale, oil However, the aroma character of these compounds varies de pending on the medium for delivery For instance 1 penten 3 one is perceived as glue, oil, and/or pungent w hen smelled in deionized water; rancid in a mixture of ethanol or methanol

PAGE 69

69 and water, but fresh and/or sweet when smelled in a tomato homogenate ( Tandon and others 2000) This variability illustrates the complexity of aroma compounds, the importance of selection of the appropriate media to evaluate these che micals, and more importantly the existence of interactions between the volatiles. Tomato L overs vs. Non Tomato Lovers A classification variable was created to analyze differences between consumers who enjoy eating tomatoes and those who do not like tomatoes as much as the other group To accomplish this goal, each panelist was classified as a tomato lover A obtained. The pooled mean f rom these ratios was 0.64 and p anelists whose scores were above 0.64 were cons idered whose r atings were below this value tomato L From this point on, these names will be used to refer to these groups. Both groups show ed common relationships between acceptability and certain compounds. However, these groups also exhibit ed unique significant correlations that may indicate that some characteristics are important for one group, but not for the other. Correlations between Overall Liking and Sensory Variables Tomato Lo vers as well as Non Tomato Lovers showed significant corre lations between overall liking and texture liking sweetness and tomato flavor intensity The regression lines for these attributes are shown in Figures 4 20, 4 21, and 4 22, respectively Tomato Lovers showed a significant correlation between overall lik ing and umami (Figure 4 23 ) which was not found for Non tomato Lover s Non tomato Lovers, on the other hand, presented a negative correlation with bitter ness (Figure 4 24 ) that

PAGE 70

70 was not observed for the other group. For the correlations that were common in both groups, Tomato Lovers always showed higher Pearson correlation coefficients, which may indicate that the presence of th ese characteristics in tomatoes is more important for this group than for Non tomato Lovers Correlations between Overall Liking an d Non Volatile Compounds Both Tomato Lovers and Non tomato Lovers showed significant correlations between overall liking and glucose, fructose, and soluble so lids. However Non tomato Lovers showed higher correlation coefficients, which may indicate their preference for tomatoes with higher sugar content. The regression lines for these variables are shown in Figures 4 25, 4 26, and 4 27. These two groups did not show any significant correlation between overall liking and glutamic acid, malic acid, citric ac id, and the ratio of citric to malic acid. Conversely the ratio of sugar (glucose plus fructose) to acid (malic plus citric acid) was signi f icant for both groups, where Tomato L overs showed a higher correlation coefficient fo r this characteristic. Figure 4 28 shows the positive correlation of both groups, as well as their regression lines. Correlations between Overall Liking and Volatile Compounds Both groups shared significant correlations for some volatiles, however, they also showed unique volatiles rel ated to overall liking. From the shared list of volatiles, three are derived from lipids and four from unknown precursor : Lipids: 1 penten 3 one (Figure 4 29) trans 2 hep tenal ( Figure 4 30) and 3 pentanone (Fig. 4 31). Unknown: Nonyl aldehyde ( Figure 4 32) cis 4 decenal ( Figure 4 33) methional ( Figure 4 34) and 2,5 dimethyl 4 hydroxy 3(2H) furanone ( Figure 4 35).

PAGE 71

71 The correlation coefficients for these compounds were always higher for Tomato Love rs than those from Non tomato Lovers, which suggests tha t the existence of these compounds in tomatoes is more important for Tomato Lovers than for Non tomato Lovers. On the other hand, both groups sho w a list of volatiles t hat were not shared with the other Tomato Lovers showed significant correlations betwee n liking of tomatoes, and the following volatiles: Amino acids: Isovaleronitrile ( Figure 4 36 ) isovaleraldehyde ( Figure 4 37 ) 3 methyl 1 butanol ( Figure 4 37 ) and isovaleric acid ( Figure 4 37). Carotenoids: 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 ol ( Figure 4 38 ) 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 one ( Figure 4 38 ) cyclocitral ( Figure 4 39 ) and geranial ( Figure 4 39 ) Lipids : 1 penten 3 ol ( Figure 4 40 ) cis 2 penten 1 ol ( Figure 4 40 ) trans 2 pentenal ( Figure 4 41 ) trans 3 hexen 1 ol ( Figure 4 41 ) and 1 pentanol ( Figure 4 42 ) Lignin and miscellaneous: guaiaco l ( Figure 4 42 ) Unknown: 1 octen 3 one ( Figure 4 43 ) benzothiazole ( Figure 4 43 ) and 4 carene ( Figure 4 44 ) Negative correlations were found between overall liking and isobutyl acetate (Figure 4 44 ) 2 methylbutyl acetate and benzyl alcohol ( Figure 4 45 ) In the general analysis, negative correlations were also found with the two first compounds, but not with benzyl alcohol. Benzyl alcohol is commonly found in plant materials (Buttery and others 1987) and it is d erived from benzoic acid (Tieman and others 2006) It has also been reported as being one of the major components present in the bound fraction of tomatoes (Marlatt an d others 1992) However, its contribution to tomato flavor has not been investigated. The negative correlation found with overall liking may indicate that the occurrence of this compound in tomato leads to decreases in a cceptability for Tomato Lovers. Non tomato Lovers did not show a significant correlation with any of

PAGE 72

72 these compounds, which may suggest that this group does not show any preference for th ese particular group of volatiles. Guaiacol has been reported as bei ng a negative factor in tomato flavo r. Its aroma profile has been described (Vogel and others 2010) However, this study failed to find a negative correlation between overall liking and this compound. Non tomato Lovers showed a smaller number of significant correlations between liking of tomatoes and volatiles. Overall liking correlated significantly with the following compounds: Amino acids: 2 isobutylthiazole ( Figure 4 46) phenylacetaldehyde ( Figure 4 47 ) and 2 phenyl etha nol ( Figure 4 47 ). Phenylpropanoids : Benzyl cyanide ( Figure 4 47 ) and benzaldehyde ( Figure 4 48). This l ist of volatiles was unique to Non tomato Lovers. This group did not show any negative correlations between liking and the volatile s analyzed toma to rather than in tomato aromatics. High Tasters vs. Low Tasters Differences in taste perception greatly affect the way subjects perceive foods. A common method to classify a subject according his tasting abilities is counting the amount of fu ngiform papillae. This is done b coloring, which does not stain fungiform papillae. Then, the papillae are counted under magnification. Sinc e it is already know n that supertasters perceive the highest intensities of flavor a different criterion was used to classify subjects according to their tasting abilities Instead of using the dyeing method, t he average intensity ratings of four

PAGE 73

73 soluti on s (s weet, sour, salty, and bitter) w ere calculated. A ll the panelists whose rating scored above the pooled mean mean were considered Correlations between Overall Liking and Sensory Variab les Both H igh t asters and Low tasters showed positive correlations between overall liking and texture liking, sweetness intensity, and tomato flavor intensity. The regression lines for these variables can be found in Figures 4 49, 4 50, and 4 51, respectiv ely. For sweetness and flavor intensity, High T asters showed higher corre lation coefficients. However, L ow Tasters had a higher correlation coefficient for texture liking Although both groups are interested i n be more influenced by sweetness intensity and tomato flavor O ir texture, rather than in sweetness and flavor intensity. positive correlation betwee n liking of tomatoes and umami (Figure 4 52). These groups did not have significant correlations between overall liking and saltiness, sourness, and bitterness. Correlations between Overall Liking and Non V olatile Compounds Glucose, fructose, and soluble solids were positively correlated to overall liking for both High Tasters and Low T asters ( Figures 4 53, 4 54, and 4 55 ). Higher correlation coefficients were observed in High Tasters which may imply that t his group is more influ enced by these attributes than Low tasters No significant correlations were found between liking and malic acid, c itric acid, glutamatic acid, or the ratio of citric to malic acid. However, a positive correlation was

PAGE 74

74 found between overall liking and the ratio of sugar (glucose plus fructose) to acid (malic plus citric acid). (Figure 4.56 ). The relationship between the ratio of sugar to acid was observed for all the groups analyzed in this project, as well as in the general analysis. Correlations between Overall Liking and Volatile Compounds High tasters Low tasters liking of toma toes and the following compounds, which have are listed according to their precursor : Phenylpropanoids a cids: benzyl cyanide (Figure 4 57). Lipid: 1 penten 3 on e ( Figure 4 58). Carotenoid: 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 ol ( Figure 4 59). Unknown: nonyl ald ehyde ( Figure 4 60) methional ( Figure 4 61) and 3 pentanone ( Figure 4 62) High T asters had higher correlation co efficients for 1 penten 3 one, no nyl aldehyde, and 3 pentanone. Low T asters had s tronger relationships between overall liking and benzyl cyanide, 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 ol, and methional. An extended list of correlations was found for High T asters In additi on to the volatiles listed above, 21 compounds were correlated positively with overall liking and two negatively correlated. The volatiles that were positively correlated are listed next according to their precursor: Amino acids: I sovaleronitrile ( Figure 4 63) isovaleraldehyde ( Figure 4 64 ) 3 methyl 1 butanol ( Figure 4 64 ) isovaleric acid ( Figure 4 65 ) 1 nitro 3 methylbutane ( Figure 4 65 ) Carotenoids: 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 one ( Figure 4 66 ) ionone ( Figure 4 66 ) cyclocitral ( Figure. 4 67 ) geranial ( Figure 4 67 ) and guaiacol ( Figure 4 68 ) Lipids: trans 2 pentenal ( Figure 4 68 ) trans 2 heptenal ( Figure 4 69 ) trans 3 hexen 1 ol ( Figure 4 69 ) 1 pentanol ( Figure 4 70 ) 1 penten 3 ol ( F igure 4 70 ), and cis 2 penten 1 ol ( Figure 4 71 ).

PAGE 75

75 Unknown: cis 4 decenal ( Figure 4 71 ) 2,5 dimethyl 4 hydroxy 3(2H) furanone ( Figure 4 72 ) 4 carene ( Figure 4 72 ) 1 octen 3 one ( Figure 4 73 ) and benzothiazole ( Figure 4 73 ) Isobutyl acetate and 2 methyl butyl acetate were found again as negative correlations with overall liking. The regression lines of these compounds are sh own in Figure 4 74. The undesirable impact of these compounds i n flavor needs to be evaluated to achieve an improvement in acceptabil ity of tomatoes. Low T asters showed only four extra correlations with overall liking : benzaldehyde, phenylacetaldehyde, gerany lacetone, and 2 phenyl ethanol, and no negative correlations. The regression lines for these four compounds are shown in Figures 4 75 and 4 76. There is a big difference in the number of volatiles that influence liking between the groups. While High Tasters show a link between acceptability and a total of 27 volatiles, Low Tasters are influenced only by 11 volatiles. There is a belief that supertasters also have more sensitivity during retronasal olfaction. If this is true, it is definitely a factor to be considered in explaining the higher amount of volatiles that influences liking for those that what we have called High Tasters

PAGE 76

76 Ta ble 4 1. Sensory ratings for all 50 varieties evaluated. Varieties are organized from best to worst in terms of Overall Liking. Variety Overall Liking Texture Liking Sweetness Intensity Sourness Intensity Saltiness Intensity Bitterness Intensity Umami I ntensity Tomato Flavor Intensity LSD value 6.6631 6.5116 4.303 3.9263 2.848 3.2351 3.6821 4.6651 Cherry Roma 33.67 33.96 25.51 18.06 12.82 9.82 12.73 33.32 Matina 28.78 27.49 25.27 16.35 12.43 10.92 16.35 35.05 Ailsa Craig 1 27.01 20.75 19.96 17.08 1 1.11 11.33 13.43 30.67 Red Calabash 26.49 21.15 24.87 16.56 11.43 7.59 8.86 29.97 Ailsa Craig 2 26.36 18.1 21.51 11.96 9.78 6.84 9.86 26.53 Red Pear 25.75 23.18 24.28 12.79 10.34 6.78 10.08 30.01 Bloody Butcher 1 25.28 17.64 25.85 10.78 9.99 7.78 11.9 30.03 Bloody Butcher 2 25 19.69 26.18 9.69 9.72 4.53 8.98 28.87 Brandywine 24.12 23.67 24.62 13.97 10.49 5.45 10.89 28.57 Tommy Toe 23.6 17.2 19.75 13.2 11.39 8.23 11.39 30.46 Store B 3 22.96 24.62 15.11 11.74 10.41 9.03 12.57 27.16 Chadwick Cherry 22. 9 14.98 26.37 11.33 10.46 7.09 11.88 30.17 Store B 6 22.77 22.94 18.89 7.59 7.62 4.29 8.65 25.75 Store A1 21.79 24.97 14.14 18.02 12.16 10.37 13.36 27.92 Super Sioux 21.29 14.79 15.66 12.98 7.46 6.56 10.54 28.06 St. Pierre 21.19 15.35 20.32 10.89 8.11 5 .35 11.04 27.67 Store B 5 19.99 19.24 14.41 11.51 7.25 6.95 10.01 22.42 Thai Pink Cherry 19.95 18.78 13.57 15.35 10.14 9.7 11.22 24.11 Giant Belgium 19.34 8.13 17.57 9.74 8.94 6.88 12.04 24.26 Yellow Jelly Bean 19.09 22.52 12.84 8.01 7.2 7.33 8.77 21.66

PAGE 77

77 Table 4 1. Continued. Variety Overall Liking Texture Liking Sweetness Intensity Sourness Intensity Saltiness Intensity Bitterness Intensity Umami Intensity Tomato Flavor Intensity LSD value 6.6631 6.5116 4.303 3.9263 2.848 3.2351 3.6821 4.6651 Di xie Golden Giant 18.79 9.17 22.11 9.98 7.95 5.51 9.67 22.09 Mexico Midget 18.46 18.1 20.17 9 7.77 5.97 10.29 26.26 Thessaloniki 1 18.23 11.69 17.79 10.44 8.37 7.18 9.27 22.73 Aunt Ruby's German Green 18.02 18.71 19.12 12.31 10.44 6.87 11.16 27.54 Gulf State Market 17.68 14.09 16.48 17.45 11.78 9.22 14.18 32.89 Peacevine Cherry 17.62 18.98 20.53 14.38 11.22 8.53 12.55 28.98 Store A2 17.16 18.71 11.34 23.41 13.73 13.11 11.15 30.19 Kentucky Beefsteak 16.69 18.31 16.91 19.09 10.58 9.09 10.26 29.06 Thes saloniki 2 16.31 13.42 19.89 9.57 8.37 7.81 9.19 22.72 Three Sisters 15.99 18.21 13.03 16.05 10.22 9.44 9.81 27.78 Stupice 15.89 19.06 10.53 15.27 11.24 14.56 12.34 23.58 Bloody Butcher 3 15.68 22.29 10.62 19.16 8.69 8.96 10.59 26.32 Skorospelka Red 1 5.33 11.09 18.71 12.96 9.21 7.72 12.39 28.11 Yellow Perfection 15.11 18.64 18.64 14.61 10.9 9.85 14.19 31.64 Garden Peach 14.62 12.79 15 12.83 8.54 9.18 11.72 24.65 Lemon Drop 13.94 18.12 16.27 14.09 7.74 5.58 9.27 26.55 Clear Pink Slicer 13.78 8.69 20 .03 8.19 7.77 5.7 11.16 27.01 Porter 13.42 9.87 15.69 8.94 7.91 8.25 11.11 21.15 Amish Salad 12.5 9.61 14.78 11.57 7.24 6.18 10.37 23.38 Ailsa Craig 3 12.38 12.06 12.56 25.95 13.11 12.91 10.86 32.61 Green Zebra 11.35 19.43 8.19 29.37 10.94 10.81 9.46 3 2.19

PAGE 78

78 Table 4 1. Continued. Variety Overall Liking Texture Liking Sweetness Intensity Sourness Intensity Saltiness Intensity Bitterness Intensity Umami Intensity Tomato Flavor Intensity LSD value 6.6631 6.5116 4.303 3.9263 2.848 3.2351 3.6821 4.6651 Large Red Cherry 9.84 9.15 11.78 14.8 13.82 12.2 9.2 21.6 Store B2 9.54 18.39 7.78 19.02 10.74 12.67 11.21 25.42 Zapotec 7.89 14.82 10.04 7.86 8.43 7.2 9.53 18.58 Tigerella Orange 7.35 11.75 11.42 16.09 11.37 11.82 10.35 22.91 Store B4 7.11 14.37 8.8 1 13.06 8.65 9.09 10.94 21.05 LA1482 6.12 13.29 9.39 19.08 9.95 11.84 8.34 26.83 Store B1 5.8 8.81 7.43 14.71 10.14 11.4 10.26 19.68 Matt's Wild Cherry 4.53 6.58 13.13 11.68 7.52 10.91 8.96 22.4 Marmande VFA 3.51 2.68 13.41 8.84 8.26 8.14 9.51 18.91

PAGE 79

79 Table 4 2 Pearson c orrelation coefficients (r) between Overall Liking and of t he attributes evaluated for all panelists, tomato lovers, non tomato lovers, high tasters and low tasters Only significant correlations are shown. 0.05. All Panelists Tom a to Lovers Non Tom ato Lovers High Taster Low Taster Texture Liking 0.7117 0.77767 0.62321 0.71964 0.7242 Sweetness Intensity 0.7803 0.73111 0.69475 0.76623 0.66216 Sourness Intensity Saltiness Intensity Bitterness Intensity 0.33974 0.30887 Umami Intensity 0.3606 0.3363 0.49824 Tomato Flavor Intensity 0.60089 0.62453 0.47298 0.67016 0.35797 Glucose 0.66457 0.59844 0.63693 0.65455 0.56304 Fructose 0.64348 0.58789 0.5931 0.64139 0.53731 Soluble Solids 0.53029 0.46936 0. 50503 0.53239 0.42908 Sugar:Acid 0.56577 0.57269 0.39441 0.58878 0.3044 Malic Acid Glutamatic acid Citric:Malic Citric Acid 1 penten 3 one 0.54906 0.5587 0.38508 0.57382 0.34553 isovaleronitrile 0.35162 0.3194 0.35368 trans 2 pentenal 0.34376 0.3367 0.3627 trans 2 heptenal 0.34793 0.32659 0.28545 0.34219 trans 3 hexen 1 ol 0.32832 0.302 0.3328 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 ol 0.38171 0.38794 0.34678 0.34858 nonyl aldehyde 0.4835 0.49738 0.29014 0.492 03 0.34272 cis 4 decenal 0.45313 0.49059 0.28344 0.49176 isovaleraldehyde 0.32956 0.31584 0.36316 3 methyl 1 butanol 0.31962 0.28358 0.33599 methional 0.343 0.31776 0.28307 0.3019 0.35755 2,5 dimethyl 4 hydroxy 3(2H) furanone 0.35125 0.35384 0.28028 0.3767 3 pentanone 0.58774 0.60874 0.37203 0.62292 0.37079

PAGE 80

80 Table 4 2. Continued. All Panelists Tomato Lovers Non Tomato Lovers High Taster Low Taster 1 pentanol 0.35907 0.37427 0.38328 benzyl cyanide 0.33534 0.3847 0.28419 0.37782 is ovaleric acid 0.32764 0.36427 0.32844 2 isobutylthiazole 0.31591 1 nitro 3 methylbutane 0.29977 benzaldehyde 0.28561 0.28989 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 one 0.2888 0.36753 0.28454 b ionone 0.3126 0.34466 b cyclocitral 0.31 063 0.37228 0.36923 geranial 0.30031 0.34969 0.2882 phenylacetaldehyde 0.29353 0.35085 0.36964 eugenol geranylacetone 0.28141 2 phenyl ethanol 0.33025 0.33081 neral salicylaldehyde isobutyl ac etate 0.30691 0.29617 0.36518 butyl acetate cis 3 hexen 1 ol 1 nitro 2 phenylethane 1 penten 3 ol 0.31744 0.38284 0.3906 2 methylbutyl acetate 0.28571 0.2858 0.35605 heptaldehyde trans,trans 2,4 decadienal 2 methylbuteraldehyde 4 carene 0.2844 0.27912 hexyl alcohol guaiacol 0.2817 0.29465 propyl acetate hexanal

PAGE 81

81 Table 4 2. Continued. All Panelists Tomato Lovers Non Tomato Lov ers High Taster Low Taster cis 2 penten 1 ol 0.33948 0.39056 0.39336 2 butylacetate 1 octen 3 one 0.4202 0.44097 0.45784 cis 3 hexenal methylsalicylate 0.35099 trans 2 hexenal b damascenone 2 methyl 1 butanol 2 methyl 2 butenal prenyl acetate hexyl acetate 3 methyl 1 pentanol 2 ethylfuran isopentyl acetate cis 3 hexenyl acetate benzothiazole 0.30572 0.3457 0.34981 benzyl alcohol 0.29457 3 methyl 2 butenal p anisaldehyde

PAGE 82

82 A B Figure 4 1 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) texture liking and B) sweetness intensity.

PAGE 83

83 A B Figure 4 2. Correlation and regression for all paneli sts between overall liking and A ) umami intensity and B ) tomato flavor intensity.

PAGE 84

84 A B Figure 4 3. Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A ) bitterness intensity and B ) rel ationship between saltiness intensity and umami intensity.

PAGE 85

85 A B Figure 4 4 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) glucose and B) fructose

PAGE 86

86 A B Figure 4 5 Correlation and regression for all panelists between ov erall liking and A) soluble solids and B) relationship between sweetness intensity and tomato flavor intensity

PAGE 87

87 A B Figure 4 6 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) sugar:acid and B) isovaleronit rile

PAGE 88

88 A B Figure 4 7 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking an d A) isova leraldehyde and B) 3 methyl 1 butanol

PAGE 89

89 A B Figure 4 8 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) isovaleri c acid and B) phenylacetal dehyde

PAGE 90

90 A B Figure 4 9 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 ol and B) 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 one

PAGE 91

91 A B Figure 4 10 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) ionone B) cyclocitral

PAGE 92

92 A B Figure 4 1 1 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) geranial B) 1 penten 3 one

PAGE 93

93 A B Figure 4 1 2 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) trans 2 h eptenal B) 1 penten 3 ol

PAGE 94

94 A B Figure 4 1 3 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) cis 2 penten 1 ol B) trans 2 pentenal

PAGE 95

95 A B Figure 4 1 4 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A ) trans 3 hexen 1 ol B) 3 pentanone

PAGE 96

96 A B Figure 4 1 5 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) 1 pentanol B) Benzyl cyanide

PAGE 97

97 A B Figure 4 1 6 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) Nonyl aldehyde B) cis 4 decenal

PAGE 98

98 A B Fig ure 4 1 7 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) methional B) 2,5 dimethyl 4 hydroxy 3(2H) furanone

PAGE 99

99 A B Figure 4 1 8 Correlation and regression for all panelists betwee n overall liking and A) 1 octen 3 oneB) benzothiazole

PAGE 100

100 A B Figure 4 19 Correlation and regression for all panelists between overall liking and A) 2 methylbutyl acetate B) isobutyl acetate

PAGE 101

101 A B Figure 4 20 Correlation and regression between overall liking and texture liking for A) tomato lovers and B) non tomato lovers A B Figure 4 2 1 Correlation and regression between overall liking and sweetness intensity for A) tomato lovers and B) non tomato lovers

PAGE 102

102 A B Figure 4 2 2 Correlation and r egres sion between overall loking and to mato flavor intensity for A) tomato lovers and B) n o n t o m a t o l o v e r s Figure 4 2 3 Correlation and regression between overall liking and umami intensity for tomato lovers

PAGE 103

103 Figure 4 24. Correlation and regression between overall liking and bitterness intensity for non tomato lovers A B Figure 4 25. Correlation and regression between overall liking and glucose for A) tomato lovers and B) non tomato lovers.

PAGE 104

104 A B Figure 4 2 6 Correlation and regression betw een overall liking and fructose for A) tomato lovers a nd B) non tomato lovers. A B Figure 4 27 Correlation and regression between overall liking and soluble solids for A) tomato lovers a nd B) non tomato lovers.

PAGE 105

105 A B Figure 4 2 8 Correlation and regr ession between overall liking and sugar to acid ratio (sugar:acid) for A) T omato lovers and B) non tomato lovers A B Figure 4 29 Correlation and regression between overall liking and 1 penten 3 one fo r A) tomato lovers and B) non tomato lovers.

PAGE 106

106 A B Figure 4 30 Correlation and regression between overall liking and trans 2 heptenal for A) tomato lovers and B) non tomato lovers. A B Figure 4 31 Correlation and regression between overall liking and 3 pentanone for A) tomato lovers and B) non tom ato lovers.

PAGE 107

107 A B Figure 4 3 2 Correlation and regression between overall liking and nonyl aldehyde for A) tomato lovers and B) non tomato lovers. Figure 4 3 3 Correlation and regression between overall liking and cis 4 decenal for A) tomato love rs and B) non tomato lovers.

PAGE 108

108 A B Figure 4 3 4 Correlation and regression between overall liking and methional for A) tomato lovers and B) non tomato lovers. A B Figure 4 3 5 Correlation and regression between overall liking and 2,5 dimethyl 4 hy d roxy 3(2h) furanone for A) tomato lovers and B) non tomato lovers

PAGE 109

109 A B Figure 4 36. Correlation and regression for tomato lovers between overall liking and A) isovaleronitrile B) isovaleraldehyde

PAGE 110

110 A B Figure 4 37. Correlation and regression for t omato lovers between overall liking and A) 3 methyl 1 butanol B) isovaleric Acid

PAGE 111

111 A B Figure 4 3 8 Correlation and regression for tomato lovers between overall liking and A) 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 ol B) 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 one.

PAGE 112

112 A Figure 4 39 Corre lation and regression for tomato lovers between overall liking and A) cyclocitral B) geranial

PAGE 113

113 A B Figure 4 4 0 Correlation and regression for tomato lovers between overall liking and A) 1 penten 3 ol B) cis 2 penten 1 ol.

PAGE 114

114 A B Figure 4 4 1 Corr elation and regression for tomato lovers between overall liking and A) trans 2 pentenal B) trans 3 hexen 1 ol.

PAGE 115

115 A B Figure 4 4 2 Correlation and regression for tomato lovers between overall liking and A) 1 pentanol B) guaiacol

PAGE 116

116 A B Figure 4 4 3 Co rrelation and regression for tomato lovers between overall liking and A) 1 octen 3 one B) benzothiazole

PAGE 117

117 A B Figure 4 4 4 Correlation and regression for tomato lovers between overall liking and A) 4 carene B) isobutyl acetate.

PAGE 118

11 8 A B Figure 4 4 5 Co rrelation and regression for tomato lovers between overall liking and A) 2 methylbutyl acetate B) benzyl alcohol.

PAGE 119

119 A B Figure 4 4 6 Correlation and regression for non tomato lovers between overall liking and A) 2 isobutylthiazole B) phenylacetaldehyde

PAGE 120

120 A B Figure 4 4 7 Correlation and regression for non tomato lovers between overall liking and A) 2 phenyl ethanol B) benzyl cyanide.

PAGE 121

121 Figure 4 4 8 Correlation and regression for non tomato lovers between overall liking and benzaldehyde. A B Fig ure 4 49 Correlation and regression between overall liking and texture liking for A) high tasters and B) low tasters

PAGE 122

122 A B Figure 4 50 Correlation and regression between overall liking and sweetness intensity for A ) high tasters and B) low tasters. A B Figure 4 5 1 Correlation and regression between overall liking and tomato flavor intensity for A) high tasters and B) low tasters.

PAGE 123

123 Figure 4 5 2 Correlation and regression between overall liking and umami intensity for low tasters. A B Figur e 4 5 3 Correlation and regression between overall liking and glucose for A) high tasters and B) low tasters

PAGE 124

124 A B Figure 4 5 4 Correlation and regression between overall liking and fructose fo r A) high tasters and B) low tasters A B Figure 4 5 5 Correlation and regression between overall liking and soluble solids for A) high tasters and B) low tasters

PAGE 125

125 A B Figure 4 5 6 Correlation and regression between overall liking and sugar:acid (ratio) for A) high tasters and B) low tasters. A B Figu re 4 5 7 Correlation and regression between overall liking and benzyl cyanide A) high tasters and B) low tasters

PAGE 126

126 A B Figure 4 5 8 Correlation and regression between overall liking and 1 penten 3 one A) high tasters and B) low tasters A B Figure 4 5 9 Correlation and regression between overall liking and 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 ol for A) high tasters and B) low tasters

PAGE 127

127 A B Figure 4 60. Correlation and regression between overall liking and nonyl aldehyde for A) high tasters and B) low tasters A B Figure 4 61. Correlation and regression between overall liking and methional f or A) high tasters and B) low tasters

PAGE 128

128 A B Figure 4 62. Correlation and regression between overall liking and 3 pentanone for A) high tasters and B) low t asters Figu re 4 63. Correlation and regression between overall liking and isovaleronitrile for high tasters

PAGE 129

129 A B Figure 4 64. Correlation and regression for high tasters between overall liking and A) isovaleraldehyde B) 3 methyl 1 butanol.

PAGE 130

130 A B Figure 4 65. Correlation and regression for high tasters between overall liking and A) isovaleric Acid B) 1 nitro 3 methylbutane.

PAGE 131

131 A B Figure 4 66. Correlation and regression for high tasters between overall liking and A) 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 one B) ionone.

PAGE 132

132 A B Figure 4 67. Correlation and regression for high tasters between overall liking and A) cyclocitral B) geranial

PAGE 133

133 A B Figure 4 68. Correlation and regression for high tasters between overall liking and A) guaiacol B) trans 2 pentenal

PAGE 134

134 A B Fig ure 4 69. Correlation and regression for high tasters between overall liking and A) trans 2 heptenal B) trans 3 hexen 1 ol

PAGE 135

135 A B Figure 4 70. Correlation and regression for high tasters between overall liking and A) 1 pentanol B) 1 penten 3 ol.

PAGE 136

136 A B Figure 4 71 Correlation and regression for high tasters between overall liking and A) cis 2 penten 1 ol B) cis 4 decenal.

PAGE 137

137 A B Figure 4 72. Correlation and regression for high tasters between overall liking and A) 2,5 dimethyl 4 hydroxy 3(2H) furan one B) 4 carene.

PAGE 138

138 A B Figure 4 73. Correlation and regression for high tasters between overall liking and A) 1 octen 3 one B) benzothiazole

PAGE 139

139 A B Figure 4 74. Correlation and regression for high tasters between overall liking and A) isobutyl Acetat e B) 2 methylbutyl acetate.

PAGE 140

140 A B Figure 4 75. Correlation and regression for low tasters between overall liking and A) benzaldehyde B) phenylacetaldehyde

PAGE 141

141 A B Figure 4 76. Correlation and regression for low tasters between overall liking and A) ge ranylacetone B) 2 phenyl ethanol.

PAGE 142

142 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS T he information c ollected with all panelists r eflected that liking of tomatoes is influenced by the liking of the texture, sweetness intensity, and tomato flavor intensity A relationship between ove rall liking and umami was also found, however, it was weaker than the correlations with the other variables. A positive correlation between saltiness and umami, and a lack of correlation between glutamic acid and overall liking, led us to believe that pane lists were not distinguishing between saltiness and umami. These data suggest that increments in acceptability of tomatoes could be obtained by improving texture, and increasing the intensity of sweetness, and tomato flavor. On the other hand, i ncrements i n bitterne ss cause decreases in acceptability, which is shown by the negative correlation between liking of tomatoes and bitterness intensity. From the non volatile components analyzed during this study, only glucose, fructose, soluble solids and the rati o of sugars to acids were positively correlated with overall liking. Acids were not a factor of influence in acceptability. Although it is tempting to assume that an increase in sugars by itself could improve liking of tomatoes, it is also necessary to acc ount for the role played by volatile compounds. Increases in sugar content of tomatoes can be done only to a certain point without affecting yield, but there is a bigger chance of changing volatile content without sacrificing production. From 62 volatiles studied, 25 were positively correlated with overall liking. When grouped according to their precursors, five come from amino acids, five from carotenoids, eight from lipids, one phenylpropanoi d and six from unknown p athway s O nly six of the seventeen prev iously reported as be ing important for tomato flavor were correlated with liking of tomatoes This indicates that there is a need to re evaluate

PAGE 143

143 the threshold technique by which the volatiles that were supposed to be important for tomato flavor w ere determ ined in the past Threshold methods provide a limited view of the capacities of our senses and also fail to describe suprathreshold sensitivity. A good example for this situation is cis 3 hexenal. This volatile was believed to be an important contributor t o for tomato flavor based on its threshold but in this study no significant r elationship was found between th is compound and acceptability of tomatoes. On the other hand, t he volatiles that were correlated with overall liking ar e not necessarily present in high concentrations in tomato fruit. For instance, nonyl aldehyde is found even in quantities as small as 0.20 ng/gfw/hr and it presented a positive influence in acceptability. The list of volatiles i mportant to tomato flavor changes depending on the con sumer n dicate that the presence of these volatiles in tomato fruit is more important for this group than between overall liking and volatiles as well as negative correlations between isobutyl acetate, 2 show any negative correlation. up showed greater correlations between liking and volatiles showed negative correlations between overall liking and Isobutyl acetate and 2

PAGE 144

144 This difference in the amount of volatiles correlated with overall liking in each group suggests that there is a different level of sensitivity to this set of volatiles between th ese groups. T his project has focused on the study of line ar relationsh ips between acceptability and sensory variable s, volatiles and non volatiles, but the complex interacti ons between volatiles require an experimental desig n such that the role of every compound is studied when present or absent in the fruit matrix. However, t his study provides new insight of the complexity of tomato flavor and most importantly, offers a roadmap to obtain a great tasting tomato. Those volatiles that are correlated with overall liking and are found in small quantities can be increased, and tho se that are negatively correlated need to be excluded or reduced. If a tomato is developed for different consumer groups, such as R es earchers and breeders have the alt ernative of creating a tomato that meets these characteristics or improving one of the tomatoes that is closest to these parameters.

PAGE 145

145 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE Question # 1. Please indicate your gender. Male Female Question # 2. Please enter your age. Mage __________ Question # 3 Sample <> Please enter your age. Fage __________ Question # 4 Sample <> Please enter your height (For example: If you are 5 feet and 3 i nches in height, enter 5.3 ). Height __________ Question # 5. Please enter your weight in pounds. Weight __________ Question # 6. What is your ethnic background? Hispanic Non Hispanic Question # 7. Which of the following best describes you? Asian/Pacific Islander Black or African American White or Caucasian Native American, Alaska Native, Aleutian Other

PAGE 146

146 Question # 8 How often do you eat raw tomatoes ? Once a day 2 3 times a week Once a week 2 3 times a month Once a month Twice a year Once a year Never Question # 9 Have you ever suffered from middle ear infections? No Yes, but not serious Yes, required antibiotics more than once Yes, required tubes in ears Now, please take a few minutes to identify the strongest LIKING (i.e., pleasure) of any kind that you have ever experienced. Once you have identified your strongest LIKING experienced, please write it down on the paper provided and type it in on the next screen. Please remembe r to use the strongest liking that you've identified, and written down as the top of your scale (100). Please click on the 'Continue' button below. Question # 8. Please type the strongest LIKING in the space below and remember that this sensation will be 100 on your scale. ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________ 1.

PAGE 147

147 Now, please take a few minutes to identify the strongest DISLIKING (i.e., displeasure) of any kind that you have ever experienced. Once you have identified your strongest DISLIKING experienced, please write it down on the paper provided and type it in on the next screen. Please remember to strongest disliking that you've identified, and written down as the bottom of your scale ( 100). Please click on the 'Continue' button below. Question # 9. Please type the strongest DISLIKING in the space below and remember that this sensation will be 100 on your scale. ____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _______ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Now you will be answering questions about the Overall Liking and D isliking from memory using a line scale. Please click on the 'Continue' button below. On t he line scale, 100 indicates the most intense liking (i.e., pleasure) you have ever experienced (no matter what the source). Similarly, 100 indicates the opposite: the most intense disliking you have ever experienced. Neutral is indicated by 0. Please u se your 100 and 100 (written on the paper provided) to answer the following questions.

PAGE 148

148 Please click the 'Continue' button below. Question # 1 Sample <> Please rate the experience of listening to your Favorite music Strongest Neutral Strongest Dislike Like 100 0 100 Question # 2 Sample <> Please rate the experience of spending time with your loved ones Strongest Neutral Strongest Dislike Like 100 0 100 Question # 3 Sample <> Please rate the most Ann oyance you have ever experienced. Strongest Neutral Strongest Dislike Like 100 0 100 Question # 4 Sample <> Please rate the most intense Anger you have ever experienced. Strongest Neutral Strongest Dislike Like 100 0 100

PAGE 149

149 Questio n # 5 Sample <> Please rate the experience of eating your Favorite Food Strongest Neutral Strongest Dislike Like 100 0 100 Question # 6 Sample <> Please rate the experience of eating your Least Favorite Food Strongest Neutral Strongest Dislike Like 100 0 100 Question # 7 Sample <> Please rate the Proudest you have ever been of accomplishing a specific goal. Strongest Neutral Strongest Dislike Like 100 0 100 Question # 8 Sample <> Please rate the most Enthusiastic you have ever been about a hobby. Strongest Neutral Strongest Dislike Like 100 0 100

PAGE 150

150 Question # 9 Sample <> Please rate the Shyest you have ever been. Strongest Neutral Strongest Dislike Like 100 0 100 Question # 10 Sample <> Please rate the most Amused you have ever been by an anecdote. Strongest Neutral Strongest Dislike Like 100 0 100 Question # 11 Sample <> Please rate the most Inspired you have ever been by a lec ture. Strongest Neutral Strongest Dislike Like 100 0 100 Question # 12 Sample <> Please rate the most Disgusted you have ever been by a specific food. Strongest Neutral Strongest Dislike Like 100 0 100

PAGE 151

151 Question # 13 Sample <> Please rate the experience of The Best Tomato You Have Ever Tasted Strongest Neutral Strongest Dislike Like 100 0 100 Question # 14 Sample <> Please rate the experience of The Worst Tomato You Have Ever Tasted Stron gest Neutral Strongest Dislike Like 100 0 100 PLEASE LIFT THE WINDOW TO RECEIVE YOUR TASTING SAMPLES PLEASE CLICK ON THE 'CONTINUE' BUTTON BELOW Take a bite of cracker and a sip of water to rinse your mouth. Remember to do this before you taste ea ch sample. WHEN ANSWERING ANY QUESTION, MAKE SURE THE NUMBER ON THE CUP MATCHES THE NUMBER ON THE MONITOR. Please click on the 'Continue' button below.

PAGE 152

152 Question # 1 Sample <> Please rate Sample <> for each of the attributes below (Asked for each sample individually, 6 samples total) OVERALL LIKING Strongest Neutral Strongest Dislike Like 100 0 100 TEXTURE Strongest Neutral Strongest Dislike Like 100 0 100 PLEASE LIFT THE WINDOW TO RECEIVE SAMPLES Now, we would like you to rate sensory intensities rather than l iking/disliking. Rate the following sensations from no sensation (0) to the strongest sensation of any kind that you have ever experienced (100). For example, for some individuals, the brightest light ever seen (usually the sun) is the most intense sensation they have ever experienced. For others, the loudest sound ever heard (e.g., like a jet plane taking off nearby) might be the most intense. For still others, a particular pain might be the most intense. Whate ver, the most intense sensation is for you, that is the intesity that goes at the top of the scale. Keep in mind that the scale is like a sensory ruler. If the sweetness of the sample is 10% of the way from zero to

PAGE 153

153 maximum (100%), then enter it at 10. I f it is twice as intense as that, it should be entered at 20, etc. Please write your most intense sensation experienced (100 on your scale) on the paper ballot provided. Please click on the 'Continue' button below. Question # 1. Please type your mo st intense sensation experienced (100 on your scale) in the space provided below. ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Question # 2. Please enter a number from zero (no sensation) to 100 (strongest imaginable sensation of any kind) that best describes the experience listed below. Loude st sound ever heard __________ Loudness of a conversation __________ Brightness of a well lit room __________ Brightest light ever seen (usually the sun) __________ Loudness of a whisper __________ Brightness of a dimly lit restaurant __________ Many individuals have not tasted monosodium glutamate (MSG), a common food additive. MSG tastes salty but many individuals also perceive another sensation called umami. When you taste the tomatoes in the next part of this experiment, we want you to rat e the umami taste. Please click the 'Continue' button below.

PAGE 154

154 Question # 3 Sample <> Please enter a number from zero (no sensation) to 100 (strongest sensation of any kind) that best describes SAMPLE <> MSG __________ Saltiness __________ Now please taste the same samples and rate the intensity of the attributes listed. Question # 1 Sample <> (Asked for each sample individualli, a total of 6 samples). Please enter a number from zero (no sensation) to 100 (strongest sensation of any kind) that best describes SAMPLE <> for the following attributes. Sweetness __________ Sourness __________ Salty __________ Bitter __________ Umami __________ Overall Tomato Flavor Intenstity __________ How typical is this tomato flavor? __________ PLEASE LIFT THE WINDOW TO RECEIVE YOUR LAST SET OF SAMPLES P lease enter a number from zero (no sensation) to 100 (strongest sensation of any kind) that best describes the bitterness of SOLUTION 1 4 Sweet __________ Sour __________ Salty __________ Bitter __________ (0%=not like a tomato at all, 100%=just like a tomato)

PAGE 155

155 APPENDIX B BIOCHEMICAL COMPOSIT ION OF FIFTY VARIETIES O F TOMATOES Table B 1.1. Biochemical composition of fifty varieties of tomatoes. Part 1. Variety Glucose Fructose Soluble Solids malic acid Citric acid citric:malic sugar:acid 1 penten 3 one mg/gfw mg/gfw Brix mg/gfw mg/gf w ratio ratio ng/gfw/hr Standard Deviation 5.25 5.58 1.23 0.29 1.11 6.27 3.26 1.31 Ailsa Craig 1 14.51 16.69 5.20 0.64 3.00 4.68 8.56 2.66 Ailsa Crai g 2 21.59 26.09 6.27 0.66 3.24 4.91 12.24 7.46 Ailsa Craig 3 13.72 16.24 4.63 1.08 3.95 3.67 5.96 1.17 Amish Salad 14.38 17.00 4.50 0.86 3.00 3.49 8.14 0.39 Aunt Ruby's German Green 21.07 24.51 5.80 0.36 4.47 12.32 9.44 2.70 Bloody Butcher 1 21.86 27.4 1 6.40 0.59 3.28 5.56 12.75 1.37 Bloody Butcher 2 22.09 25.91 6.77 0.58 3.08 5.29 13.11 2.29 Bloody Butcher 3 15.61 19.35 4.77 0.89 2.90 3.25 9.21 0.64 Brandywine 25.12 28.90 7.00 0.40 5.03 12.59 9.94 2.11 Chadwick Cherry 28.44 30.36 7.87 0.35 3.38 9.5 8 15.74 3.91 Cherry Roma 26.84 27.80 8.10 0.21 4.70 22.76 11.13 3.40 Clear Pink Slicer 12.25 15.40 3.80 0.40 3.75 9.28 6.65 0.58 Dixie Golden Giant 20.77 25.32 6.13 0.38 3.45 9.00 12.01 0.88 Garden Peach 12.40 15.32 4.20 0.57 4.86 8.49 5.10 0.24 Giant Belgium 18.98 22.58 5.90 0.24 2.43 10.01 15.52 2.06 Green Zebra 15.73 17.93 5.67 0.56 5.43 9.78 5.62 1.12

PAGE 156

156 Table B 1 1. Continued. Variety Glucose Fructose Soluble Solids malic acid Citric acid citric:malic sugar:acid 1 penten 3 one mg/gfw mg/gfw Brix mg/gfw mg/gf w ratio ratio ng/gfw/hr Gulf State Market 14.57 16.09 4.90 0.56 3.98 7.11 6.75 0.37 Kentucky Beefsteak 14.18 14.98 4.50 0.32 2.66 8.28 9.79 0.73 LA1482 11.71 16.46 5.07 0.28 6.11 21.94 4.41 0.55 Large Red Cherry 17.76 21.00 6.10 0.46 3.50 7.62 9.80 3.25 Lemon Drop 21.72 23.73 6.93 0.25 4.30 16.98 9.98 0.71 Marmande VFA 7.39 8.64 4.93 1.01 2.59 2.57 4.45 0.38 Matina 18.40 21.24 5.93 0.44 2.28 5.14 14.53 4.20 Matt's Wild Cherry 17.65 18.81 7.23 0.18 5.40 29.25 6.53 0.38 Mexico Midget 17 .95 20.71 6.17 0.23 5.27 22.78 7.02 0.89 Peacevine Cherry 23.65 26.55 7.63 0.33 4.59 13.80 10.20 1.82 Porter 17.46 19.68 5.28 0.47 2.27 4.79 13.56 1.12 Store B3 15.40 17.11 4.90 0.44 3.20 7.21 8.92 0.37 Store B4 10.11 15.43 4.47 0.59 3.16 5.39 6.82 0.6 1 Store B5 14.57 16.66 4.73 0.52 2.53 4.90 10.23 0.51 Store B6 26.45 28.09 7.43 0.74 3.79 5.12 12.05 1.05 Store B1 9.71 11.70 3.83 0.79 3.35 4.26 5.17 0.32 Store B2 11.05 14.14 4.20 0.50 3.83 7.60 5.81 0.87 Red Calabash 29.66 35.78 8.53 0.83 5.83 7.05 9.83 2.41 Red Pear 21.01 23.30 6.55 0.62 3.44 5.56 10.93 1.15 Skorospelka Red 8.98 12.22 3.77 0.55 5.88 10.75 3.30 0.32

PAGE 157

157 Table B 1.1. Continued. Variety Glucose Fructose Soluble Solids malic acid Citric acid citric:malic sugar:acid 1 penten 3 one mg /gfw mg/gfw Brix mg/gfw mg/gf w ratio ratio ng/gfw/hr St. Pierre 14.53 15.76 4.53 0.83 2.21 2.67 9.95 0.85 Stupice 15.11 17.40 5.30 0.64 2.38 3.74 10.79 1.79 Super Sioux 15.26 15.78 4.73 0.45 3.56 7.89 7.74 0.50 Thai Pink Cherry 15.39 17.14 4.77 0.19 2. 33 12.35 12.89 1.25 Thessaloniki 1 21.20 23.19 6.37 0.45 2.49 5.55 15.11 1.26 Thessaloniki 2 19.82 23.12 5.77 0.38 2.50 6.58 14.93 1.10 Three Sisters 13.97 16.20 4.70 0.92 3.80 4.12 6.39 1.08 Tigerella Orange 10.59 13.08 3.67 1.15 3.08 2.67 5.60 0.77 Tommy Toe 18.58 21.55 6.12 0.61 3.61 5.87 9.50 2.56 Store A1 13.10 17.61 5.40 0.33 4.55 13.93 6.29 1.14 Store A2 14.70 18.39 5.67 0.30 5.75 19.34 5.47 1.56 Yellow Jelly Bean 21.14 23.77 6.53 0.21 4.31 20.28 9.93 0.82 Yellow Perfection 12.22 15.00 4.50 1.64 3.62 2.20 5.18 0.92 Zapotec 10.00 12.22 3.70 1.03 1.62 1.58 8.40 0.31

PAGE 158

158 Table B 1.2. Biochemical composition of fifty varieties of tomatoes. Part 2. Variety isovaleronitrile trans 2 pentenal trans 2 heptenal trans 3 hexen 1 ol 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 ol nonyl aldehyde cis 4 decenal isovaleraldehyde ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr Standard Deviation 14.12 0.88 0.43 0.74 0.12 0.19 0.85 11.20 Ailsa Craig 1 18.44 2.04 0.64 1.71 0.17 0.30 1.09 24.62 Ailsa Craig 2 47.53 5.40 2.76 1.16 0.68 0.85 5.55 17.26 Ailsa Craig 3 1.76 1.45 0.69 0.67 0.16 0.20 1.11 4.50 Amish Salad 2.15 0.54 0.16 0.81 0.15 0.12 0.90 6.60 Aunt Ruby's German Green 25.24 1.83 0.62 1.65 0.09 0.48 1.59 11.89 Bloody Butcher 1 8.64 0.98 0. 22 1.42 0.15 0.31 0.82 24.49 Bloody Butcher 2 30.89 1.39 0.37 1.00 0.22 0.33 1.50 22.42 Bloody Butcher 3 2.29 0.99 0.44 0.69 0.14 0.20 0.98 3.61 Brandywine 1.44 1.51 0.56 0.68 0.21 0.37 0.95 3.71 Chadwick Cherry 27.30 2.98 1.14 1.93 0.30 0.38 1.41 12.4 5 Cherry Roma 37.73 1.27 0.71 2.19 0.39 1.13 2.78 21.12 Clear Pink Slicer 4.87 0.83 0.32 0.92 0.15 0.16 0.98 8.35 Dixie Golden Giant 1.18 0.59 0.24 0.28 0.12 0.32 0.77 4.72 Garden Peach 1.08 0.31 0.08 0.50 0.03 0.08 0.35 3.93 Giant Belgium 13.78 1.63 0.58 1.29 0.32 0.38 2.73 23.02 Green Zebra 9.29 1.60 0.38 1.00 0.07 0.07 0.43 15.20 Gulf State Market 4.63 0.63 0.27 1.39 0.27 0.14 1.09 6.14 Kentucky Beefsteak 0.89 0.47 0.16 0.21 0.13 0.06 0.72 1.09 LA1482 2.66 1.59 0.82 0.40 0.15 0.21 0.24 5.99

PAGE 159

159 Ta ble B 1.2. Continued. Variety isovaleronitrile trans 2 pentenal trans 2 heptenal trans 3 hexen 1 ol 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 ol nonyl aldehyde cis 4 decenal isovaleraldehyde ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr Mar mande VFA 10.73 0.54 0.15 0.59 0.12 0.23 0.46 5.73 Matina 30.03 1.66 1.21 1.87 0.30 0.30 1.81 21.01 Matt's Wild Cherry 11.92 0.31 0.23 0.79 0.08 0.27 0.26 5.75 Mexico Midget 25.50 0.61 0.43 1.56 0.11 0.27 0.50 33.93 Peacevine Cherry 20.64 0.98 0.93 1.1 2 0.49 0.67 1.92 11.82 Porter 7.34 0.70 0.41 0.96 0.24 0.24 1.83 5.17 Store B3 7.42 0.26 0.28 0.83 0.26 0.26 1.34 1.81 Store B4 2.40 0.19 0.18 0.79 0.22 0.24 1.32 3.46 Store B5 7.24 0.31 0.14 0.52 0.11 0.09 0.93 6.00 Store B6 5.68 0.34 0.32 0.74 0.15 0.17 1.57 3.63 Store B1 8.98 0.16 0.12 0.73 0.06 0.20 0.38 15.62 Store B2 2.45 0.42 0.11 0.64 0.06 0.33 0.51 1.95 Red Calabash 20.52 1.70 0.45 2.24 0.09 0.54 0.90 29.96 Red Pear 20.47 0.77 0.28 2.03 0.14 0.31 0.63 23.81 Skorospelka Red 7.31 0.83 0.42 1.49 0.22 0.29 0.46 11.09 St. Pierre 4.20 1.02 0.57 0.47 0.26 0.08 0.72 3.84 Stupice 26.64 1.79 0.67 1.85 0.36 0.43 0.98 15.14 Super Sioux 6.80 0.66 0.28 0.93 0.14 0.10 0.90 7.85 Thai Pink Cherry 14.52 0.87 0.38 1.28 0.19 0.40 1.33 15.76 Thessaloniki 1 38.59 0.91 0.20 3.37 0.13 0.19 1.49 59.18

PAGE 160

160 Table B 1.2. Continued. Variety isovaleronitrile trans 2 pentenal trans 2 heptenal trans 3 hexen 1 ol 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 ol nonyl aldehyde cis 4 decenal isovaleraldehyde ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw /hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr Tigerella Orange 1.92 1.04 0.26 0.74 0.13 0.20 0.86 3.38 Tommy Toe 25.90 1.93 0.58 2.45 0.15 0.30 0.90 25.86 Store A1 3.04 0.28 0.15 0.53 0.09 0.25 0.52 3.38 Store A2 4.81 0.37 0.13 0.60 0.07 0.24 0.55 14.31 Yellow Jelly Bean 23.42 0.74 0.16 1.25 0.05 0.21 0.58 14.57 Yellow Perfection 6.89 1.20 0.29 1.52 0.10 0.19 0.79 14.19 Zapotec 1.13 0.44 0.15 0.35 0.11 0.11 0.50 4.91

PAGE 161

161 Table B 1.3. Biochemical composition of fifty varieties of tomatoes. Part 3. Varie ty 3 methyl 1 butanol methional 2,5 dimethyl 4 hydroxy 3(2H) furanone 3 pentanon e 1 pentan ol benzyl cyanid e isovaleric acid 2 isobutylthi azole ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw /hr ng/gfw /hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr Standard Deviation 34.44 0.12 0.53 2.80 2.33 0.55 0.10 4.95 Ailsa Craig 1 77.77 0.55 0.47 8.09 3.86 0.05 0.12 5.87 Ailsa Craig 2 155.28 0.15 3.61 12.09 16.93 0.09 0.03 24.78 Ailsa Craig 3 23.77 0.05 0.97 4.10 4.87 0.04 0.02 2.74 Amish Salad 18.20 0.05 0.28 3.27 3.06 0.11 0.01 2.45 Aunt Ruby's German Green 37.23 0.18 0.53 11.42 6.08 0.27 0.16 8.02 Bloody Butcher 1 50.45 0.09 0.14 7.58 3.46 0.03 0.17 4.83 Bloody Butcher 2 41.50 0.10 0.26 8.87 3.91 0.04 0.10 8.28 Bloody Butcher 3 18.25 0.04 0.46 3.93 4.24 0.08 0.01 3.39 Brandywin e 9.52 0.05 0.49 6.18 3.71 0.07 0.08 2.73 Chadwick Cherry 33.81 0.18 0.84 8.61 5.66 0.57 0.04 10.48 Cherry Roma 44.34 0.50 0.79 12.56 5.58 3.32 0.24 17.42 Clear Pink Slicer 32.32 0.18 0.24 2.97 2.58 0.11 0.05 6.99 Dixie Golden Giant 7.89 0.04 0.18 4.39 2.18 0.04 0.02 1.93 Garden Peach 16.48 0.09 0.07 2.08 1.38 0.07 0.01 2.14 Giant Belgium 45.82 0.19 0.46 9.56 5.04 0.06 0.15 5.63 Green Zebra 41.34 0.15 0.27 6.67 3.23 0.13 0.01 9.40 Gulf State Market 44.38 0.09 0.31 2.78 3.09 0.21 0.02 7.18 Kentucky Beefsteak 2.51 0.02 0.17 3.29 1.77 0.11 0.02 0.89 LA1482 12.03 0.09 0.18 3.71 2.92 0.04 0.01 7.32

PAGE 162

162 Table B 1.3. Continued Variety 3 methyl 1 butanol methional 2,5 dimethyl 4 hydroxy 3(2H) furanone 3 pentanon e 1 pentan ol benzyl cyanid e isovaleric acid 2 i sobutylthi azole ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw /hr ng/gfw /hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr Marmande VFA 12.81 0.06 0.06 2.80 2.82 0.03 0.12 4.52 Matina 120.42 0.20 1.40 8.20 8.38 0.05 0.42 9.27 Matt's Wild Cherry 46.13 0.05 0.14 1.46 2.55 0.25 0 .01 13.77 Mexico Midget 84.99 0.25 0.19 4.34 2.57 0.37 0.01 11.82 Peacevine Cherry 40.35 0.50 0.49 8.29 6.57 1.94 0.04 14.16 Porter 11.15 0.09 0.38 5.27 4.52 0.20 0.06 1.73 Store B3 7.00 0.12 0.12 2.46 3.54 0.32 0.05 3.99 Store B4 15.40 0.17 0.06 2.93 4.30 0.17 0.01 4.67 Store B5 7.75 0.10 0.06 2.81 2.04 0.16 0.02 2.89 Store B6 9.66 0.16 0.30 4.65 4.00 1.21 0.01 0.74 Store B1 28.81 0.08 0.15 2.94 1.77 0.07 0.03 2.75 Store B2 4.51 0.03 0.17 5.25 2.40 0.05 0.00 1.03 Red Calabash 97.05 0.19 0.33 8.87 3.18 0.04 0.10 6.61 Red Pear 34.12 0.15 0.19 6.34 2.62 0.12 0.15 4.62 Skorospelka Red 53.17 0.13 0.20 3.19 3.02 0.08 0.05 7.92 St. Pierre 10.55 0.08 0.29 3.62 3.15 0.30 0.01 5.60 Stupice 33.54 0.22 0.35 8.30 4.24 0.07 0.17 7.63 Super Sioux 21.85 0.1 1 0.30 4.18 2.84 0.16 0.01 5.61 Thai Pink Cherry 18.67 0.11 0.26 7.26 4.10 0.04 0.22 5.67

PAGE 163

163 Table B 1.3. Continued. Variety 3 methyl 1 butanol methional 2,5 dimethyl 4 hydroxy 3(2H) furanone 3 pentanon e 1 pentan ol benzyl cyanid e isovaleric acid 2 isobutylt hi azole ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw /hr ng/gfw /hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr Three Sisters 28.83 0.15 0.44 5.82 4.06 0.28 0.04 9.02 Tigerella Orange 17.13 0.04 0.27 3.87 3.10 0.01 0.05 1.35 Tommy Toe 64.61 0.31 0.29 8.62 3.51 0.14 0.22 3.7 0 Store A1 5.06 0.07 0.08 5.49 2.82 0.72 0.01 1.09 Store A2 24.75 0.14 0.11 7.18 3.32 0.04 0.02 0.80 Yellow Jelly Bean 36.66 0.11 0.12 3.26 1.98 0.73 0.00 17.53 Yellow Perfection 62.38 0.17 0.29 3.78 2.46 0.03 0.05 6.18 Zapotec 10.22 0.14 0.05 2.72 1. 60 0.16 0.02 2.58

PAGE 164

164 Table B 1.4. Biochemical composition of fifty varieties of tomatoes. Part 4. Variety 1 nitro 3 methylbutan e benzaldehyd e 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 one ionone cyclocitra l geranial phenylacetaldehyd e eugenol ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr Standard Deviation 22.83 2.81 2.58 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.44 0.51 Ailsa Craig 1 26.60 4.18 2.91 0.14 0.20 0.11 0.08 1. 27 Ailsa Craig 2 67.16 4.29 7.91 0.46 0.59 0.50 0.06 1.91 Ailsa Craig 3 2.20 0.73 1.74 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.94 Amish Salad 2.00 3.79 2.47 0.01 0.05 0.11 0.12 0.01 Aunt Ruby's German Green 36.92 0.89 0.28 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.24 0.28 Bloody Butcher 1 18.1 5 1.35 4.58 0.05 0.12 0.16 0.05 0.18 Bloody Butcher 2 55.18 1.35 5.37 0.07 0.14 0.19 0.02 0.09 Bloody Butcher 3 1.06 1.73 2.72 0.05 0.08 0.14 0.06 0.27 Brandywine 2.21 0.63 3.55 0.04 0.06 0.16 0.22 0.21 Chadwick Cherry 24.27 3.18 7.27 0.11 0.20 0.34 0. 14 0.46 Cherry Roma 13.29 12.33 8.53 0.10 0.11 0.23 2.77 0.00 Clear Pink Slicer 6.63 4.85 3.01 0.03 0.05 0.12 0.50 1.65 Dixie Golden Giant 0.92 0.61 3.94 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.01 Garden Peach 1.53 3.56 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.17 0.75 Giant Belgium 35.30 1.90 8.05 0.07 0.13 0.30 0.18 0.01 Green Zebra 9.04 7.12 0.20 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.57 Gulf State Market 9.16 7.35 4.57 0.02 0.05 0.17 1.06 0.95

PAGE 165

165 Table B 1.4. Continued. Variety 1 nitro 3 methylbutan e benzaldehyd e 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 one ionone cyclocitra l geranial phenylacetaldehyd e eugenol ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/h r ng/gfw/h r ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/h r ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/h r Large Red Cherry 52.54 13.39 8.20 0.18 0.23 0.32 0.45 0.50 Lemon Drop 12.36 0.87 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.01 Marmande VFA 6.13 2.00 3.94 0.04 0.09 0.19 0.01 0.01 Matina 48.78 3.66 5.47 0.11 0.14 0.25 0.04 0.31 Matt's Wild Cherry 10.91 0.92 1.48 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.00 Mexico Midget 34.82 2.48 2.55 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.91 0.00 Peacevine Cherry 22.74 6.87 9.25 0.1 1 0.21 0.29 0.46 0.02 Porter 3.96 1.73 6.30 0.06 0.14 0.22 0.07 0.01 Store B3 16.31 3.33 9.05 0.02 0.05 0.21 0.45 0.42 Store B4 4.06 2.29 7.73 0.03 0.07 0.11 0.24 0.28 Store B5 12.32 2.10 4.29 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.19 0.15 Store B6 2.69 8.67 4.48 0.02 0.03 0.07 1.21 0.00 Store B1 25.40 2.11 5.59 0.03 0.08 0.09 0.57 0.25 Store B2 4.40 0.71 3.93 0.03 0.07 0.08 0.20 0.19 Red Calabash 39.76 1.43 3.18 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.07 0.47 Red Pear 19.96 5.15 4.84 0.05 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.34 Skorospelka Red 16.39 2.00 5.27 0.03 0.06 0.25 0.13 0.02

PAGE 166

166 Table B 1.4. Continued. Variety 1 nitro 3 methylbutan e benzaldehyd e 6 methyl 5 hepten 2 one ionone cyclocitra l geranial phenylacetaldehyd e eugenol ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/h r ng/gfw/h r ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/h r ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/h r Super Sioux 9.45 2.56 2.59 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.21 0.10 Thai Pink Cherry 27.43 1.00 8.77 0.06 0.15 0.33 0.10 0.02 T hessaloniki 1 88.06 4.15 5.35 0.04 0.13 0.17 0.09 0.84 Thessaloniki 2 103.97 2.16 3.06 0.05 0.10 0.12 0.03 0.80 Three Sisters 17.59 4.10 5.29 0.06 0.10 0.23 0.24 0.35 Tigerella Orange 3.12 0.54 1.68 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.14 1.73 Tommy Toe 20.34 7.72 4.00 0. 09 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.31 Store A1 0.75 1.97 4.23 0.02 0.08 0.07 0.44 0.01 Store A2 1.93 2.37 2.30 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.28 0.01 Yellow Jelly Bean 14.24 1.96 0.12 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.20 0.08 Yellow Perfection 14.58 3.61 0.29 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.12 1.96 Zapotec 1.51 3.14 2.00 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.19 0.36

PAGE 167

167 Table B 1.5. Biochemical composition of fifty varieties of tomatoes. Part 5. Variety geranylaceton e 2 phenyl ethanol neral salicylaldehyd e isobutyl acetate butyl acetate cis 3 hexen 1 ol 1 nitro 2 phenylethan e ng/g fw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr Standard Deviation 1.54 1.44 0.06 0.45 1.23 0.11 27.47 1.02 Ailsa Craig 1 1.24 0.04 0.24 0.41 0.86 0.13 47.06 0.08 Ailsa Craig 2 3.06 0.12 0.40 1.71 1.31 0.11 196.96 0.17 Ailsa Craig 3 0.89 0.03 0.21 1.45 0.86 0.21 56.68 0.36 Amish Salad 0.90 0.18 0.18 0.68 0.21 0.14 24.30 0.41 Aunt Ruby's German Green 0.06 0.06 0.19 0.42 1.24 0.13 59.85 1.66 Bloody Butcher 1 1.17 0.03 0.17 0.55 0.56 0.16 47.09 0.18 Bloody Butcher 2 1.53 0.0 3 0.12 0.28 0.38 0.10 40.15 0.29 Bloody Butcher 3 1.78 0.03 0.19 0.53 0.43 0.16 34.83 0.47 Brandywine 1.33 0.06 0.11 0.60 0.24 0.15 45.87 0.15 Chadwick Cherry 1.97 0.04 0.18 0.36 0.53 0.09 103.87 1.07 Cherry Roma 4.41 7.92 0.30 0.02 0.36 0.00 34.74 3.1 4 Clear Pink Slicer 1.16 0.74 0.19 0.90 4.58 0.32 49.81 0.57 Dixie Golden Giant 3.50 0.01 0.15 0.05 0.71 0.68 19.22 0.06 Garden Peach 0.03 0.21 0.13 0.91 0.71 0.11 11.08 0.43 Giant Belgium 2.52 0.02 0.22 0.12 0.60 0.11 48.53 0.83 Green Zebra 0.03 0.05 0.11 0.82 0.76 0.17 35.39 0.26 Gulf State Market 2.35 4.54 0.19 0.65 3.04 0.16 24.66 1.74 Kentucky Beefsteak 9.58 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.22 0.04 17.75 0.48 LA1482 0.69 0.04 0.16 0.19 1.27 0.13 35.83 0.13

PAGE 168

168 Table B 1.5. Continued. Variety geranylaceton e 2 phe nyl ethanol neral salicylaldehyd e isobutyl acetate butyl acetate cis 3 hexen 1 ol 1 nitro 2 phenylethan e ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr Marmande VFA 1.10 0.03 0.31 0.39 0.42 0.04 33.02 0.09 Matina 2.43 0.03 0.20 0.77 0.65 0.13 46.11 0.15 Matt's Wild Cherry 0.39 0.22 0.16 0.05 0.35 0.04 27.35 0.87 Mexico Midget 0.67 1.80 0.11 0.03 0.68 0.02 20.87 4.03 Peacevine Cherry 3.45 1.85 0.20 0.04 0.63 0.07 30.72 4.16 Porter 1.82 0.11 0.14 0.03 0.13 0.05 42.19 0.35 Store B3 3.04 2.03 0.27 0.52 1.19 0.20 42.45 2.17 Store B4 2.63 1.45 0.21 0.82 7.09 0.41 40.28 1.43 Store B5 1.32 0.38 0.10 0.13 0.42 0.09 25.40 0.88 Store B6 0.94 4.57 0.11 0.15 0.75 0.01 23.94 3.97 Store B1 0.78 1.46 0.15 0.12 3.06 0.12 28.09 1 .04 Store B2 1.14 0.82 0.11 0.11 0.40 0.06 36.48 0.33 Red Calabash 1.17 0.02 0.15 0.31 0.96 0.19 49.44 0.10 Red Pear 1.26 0.03 0.16 0.84 0.29 0.05 26.96 0.37 Skorospelka Red 2.49 0.11 0.20 0.10 1.50 0.21 52.41 0.46 St. Pierre 1.11 0.00 0.11 1.14 1.03 0.12 35.07 0.41 Stupice 2.61 0.02 0.18 0.74 0.75 0.10 40.61 0.56 Super Sioux 0.86 0.18 0.15 0.69 1.71 0.17 29.10 0.90 Thai Pink Cherry 2.60 0.03 0.20 0.05 0.17 0.05 36.09 0.35 Thessaloniki 1 1.31 0.02 0.16 0.87 0.61 0.09 30.05 0.57

PAGE 169

169 Table B 1.5. Conti nued. Variety geranylaceton e 2 phenyl ethanol neral salicylaldehyd e isobutyl acetate butyl acetate cis 3 hexen 1 ol 1 nitro 2 phenylethan e ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr Tigerella Orange 0.76 0.01 0.13 2 .00 1.09 0.24 62.93 0.03 Tommy Toe 1.32 0.13 0.18 0.41 0.57 0.08 42.78 0.33 Store A1 1.58 1.09 0.09 0.06 0.17 0.00 23.37 0.34 Store A2 0.71 0.57 0.06 0.17 0.84 0.01 28.32 0.20 Yellow Jelly Bean 0.02 0.50 0.09 0.35 0.55 0.01 28.50 1.24 Yellow Perfectio n 0.05 0.10 0.19 1.02 2.90 0.24 42.54 0.16 Zapotec 0.46 0.38 0.12 0.41 1.94 0.11 19.98 0.80

PAGE 170

170 Table B 1.6. Biochemical composition of fifty varieties of tomatoes. Part 6. Variety 1 penten 3 ol 2 methylbuty l acetate heptaldehyd e trans,trans 2,4 decadiena l 2 methylbuteraldehyd e 4 carene hexyl alcohol guaiacol ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr Standard Deviation 2.20 1.49 5.60 0.02 1.44 0.03 25.57 0.98 Ailsa Craig 1 5.58 0.89 4.56 0.01 3.99 0.02 19.14 0.65 Ailsa Craig 2 13.00 1.14 8.93 0.13 1.68 0.16 176.48 3.55 Ailsa Craig 3 2.88 0.86 1.00 0.06 2.49 0.01 34.43 0.94 Amish Salad 2.53 0.27 0.71 0.00 3.09 0.01 10.30 0.04 Aunt Ruby's German Green 8.20 0.96 7.15 0.00 3.85 0.05 25.14 3.75 Bloody Butcher 1 5.2 6 0.73 4.19 0.00 2.64 0.10 16.95 1.27 Bloody Butcher 2 5.87 0.43 7.04 0.01 2.15 0.09 29.71 0.70 Bloody Butcher 3 2.48 0.69 1.11 0.04 2.09 0.01 27.83 0.43 Brandywine 7.31 0.19 1.13 0.00 1.18 0.07 17.27 4.94 Chadwick Cherry 6.75 0.71 5.30 0.01 1.99 0.04 69.30 0.87 Cherry Roma 4.71 0.15 3.55 0.02 5.45 0.02 8.95 0.07 Clear Pink Slicer 2.74 7.14 1.39 0.01 4.30 0.02 25.85 0.44 Dixie Golden Giant 5.37 0.94 0.63 0.00 1.90 0.08 5.71 0.09 Garden Peach 1.45 1.40 0.42 0.00 3.45 0.01 2.99 0.39 Giant Belgium 6.6 0 0.52 7.01 0.01 3.43 0.04 48.83 0.21 Green Zebra 3.59 0.95 1.97 0.01 3.96 0.02 11.29 0.72 Gulf State Market 1.94 3.38 2.02 0.01 2.62 0.01 9.16 0.75 Kentucky Beefsteak 2.94 0.24 0.31 0.01 3.06 0.00 5.60 0.01 LA1482 4.06 1.11 1.93 0.00 4.56 0.02 39.12 0.07

PAGE 171

171 Table B 1.6. Continued. Variety 1 penten 3 ol 2 methylbuty l acetate heptaldehyd e trans,trans 2,4 decadienal 2 methylbuteraldehyd e 4 carene hexyl alcohol guaiacol ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/h r ng/gfw/h r ng/gfw/h r Mar mande VFA 4.51 0.14 1.03 0.01 1.15 0.11 19.04 0.17 Matina 5.78 1.13 9.50 0.07 2.66 0.06 34.88 0.97 Matt's Wild Cherry 1.76 0.18 1.58 0.02 3.18 0.04 21.07 0.12 Mexico Midget 1.88 0.28 8.73 0.00 6.39 0.00 14.33 0.03 Peacevine Cherry 3.81 0.73 3.72 0.01 6 .55 0.11 13.72 0.08 Porter 3.87 0.09 1.49 0.00 1.38 0.02 31.12 0.06 Store B3 2.67 2.12 1.55 0.00 3.25 0.02 49.77 0.80 Store B4 3.99 6.86 1.17 0.01 5.15 0.01 37.70 0.88 Store B5 3.08 0.78 2.53 0.00 4.40 0.01 18.74 0.19 Store B6 2.50 0.11 1.51 0.00 6.02 0.01 13.48 0.02 Store B1 3.36 4.10 2.41 0.01 4.51 0.02 17.33 0.18 Store B2 8.02 0.31 0.85 0.00 1.23 0.01 15.60 0.09 Red Calabash 6.42 1.04 4.39 0.00 2.40 0.05 9.17 1.28 Red Pear 3.48 0.14 2.58 0.00 2.70 0.02 11.60 1.45 Skorospelka Red 2.56 1.91 2.48 0.01 3.47 0.01 35.22 0.20 St. Pierre 3.10 1.35 0.97 0.01 3.33 0.01 28.72 0.66 Stupice 6.58 0.74 10.14 0.01 3.06 0.03 22.57 1.11 Super Sioux 2.25 1.81 1.83 0.01 4.51 0.01 15.23 0.65 Thai Pink Cherry 6.12 0.19 3.45 0.00 2.38 0.02 17.64 0.09

PAGE 172

172 Table B 1.6 Continued. Variety 1 penten 3 ol 2 methylbuty l acetate heptaldehyd e trans,trans 2,4 decadienal 2 methylbuteraldehyd e 4 carene hexyl alcohol guaiacol ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/h r ng/gfw/h r ng/gfw/h r Three Sisters 4.16 2. 54 2.85 0.02 5.17 0.01 32.87 0.46 Tigerella Orange 3.27 1.52 0.87 0.01 3.08 0.01 22.59 0.76 Tommy Toe 5.88 0.70 3.48 0.00 3.34 0.02 12.43 0.60 Store A1 3.16 0.04 1.04 0.00 2.14 0.01 11.60 0.03 Store A2 3.41 0.05 0.77 0.00 6.35 0.01 7.79 0.04 Yellow Je lly Bean 1.66 0.13 3.99 0.00 3.89 0.01 9.94 0.07 Yellow Perfection 3.52 2.98 2.39 0.01 5.20 0.02 8.78 0.75 Zapotec 2.28 2.11 0.69 0.00 5.66 0.01 12.46 0.71

PAGE 173

173 Table B 1.7 Biochemical composition of fif ty varieties of tomatoes. Part 7 Variety propyl ace tate hexanal cis 2 penten 1 ol glutamatic acid 2 butylacetate 1 octen 3 one cis 3 hexenal methylsalicylate ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr mg/gfw ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr Standard Deviation 0.22 62.66 0.56 1.36 0.22 0.05 48.90 0.64 Ailsa Craig 1 0.36 164.00 1.67 1.40 0.04 0.09 168.52 0.28 Ailsa Craig 2 0.41 202.28 3.23 1.25 0.01 0.27 64.45 0.22 Ailsa Craig 3 0.33 65.54 0.68 1.32 0.06 0.09 33.63 0.40 Amish Salad 0.14 47.11 0.59 1.76 0.16 0.04 27.19 0.01 Aunt Ruby's German Green 0.18 162 .76 1.78 1.16 0.01 0.07 131.33 2.06 Bloody Butcher 1 0.23 93.94 1.04 0.90 0.02 0.04 60.98 0.18 Bloody Butcher 2 0.22 116.54 0.99 1.57 0.01 0.06 49.01 0.14 Bloody Butcher 3 0.18 44.75 0.49 1.26 0.09 0.05 19.56 0.13 Brandywine 0.16 143.18 1.66 1.17 0.04 0.07 161.32 2.28 Chadwick Cherry 0.17 173.87 1.34 2.58 0.00 0.09 112.85 1.18 Cherry Roma 0.08 68.39 1.69 3.53 0.01 0.14 52.68 0.01 Clear Pink Slicer 0.58 132.11 0.78 0.69 0.36 0.03 84.45 0.41 Dixie Golden Giant 0.40 82.28 1.12 0.57 0.06 0.07 79.24 0.09 Garden Peach 0.15 22.12 0.55 1.10 0.23 0.02 21.44 0.32 Giant Belgium 0.29 306.77 1.16 1.36 0.00 0.06 36.79 0.02 Green Zebra 0.12 136.00 1.20 2.20 0.67 0.04 122.97 0.71 Gulf State Market 0.33 52.21 0.71 1.64 0.86 0.03 34.45 0.88 Kentucky Beefsteak 0. 16 21.92 0.38 1.28 0.29 0.02 15.96 0.02 LA1482 0.34 200.77 0.55 1.38 0.02 0.06 64.16 1.06

PAGE 174

174 Table B 1.7. Continued. Variety propyl acetate hexanal cis 2 penten 1 ol glutamatic acid 2 butylacetate 1 octen 3 one cis 3 hexenal methylsalicylate ng/gfw/hr ng /gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr mg/gfw ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr Marmande VFA 0.07 164.65 1.03 0.67 0.01 0.02 81.83 0.02 Matina 0.94 107.77 1.74 2.15 0.01 0.12 42.78 0.29 Matt's Wild Cherry 0.25 18.65 0.36 2.95 0.01 0.06 6.87 0.02 Mexico Midget 0.06 19 6.76 0.96 5.24 0.01 0.05 102.57 0.00 Peacevine Cherry 0.35 76.15 0.73 1.66 0.06 0.20 34.73 0.01 Porter 0.19 95.45 0.80 1.59 0.01 0.08 39.58 0.01 Store B3 0.26 105.96 0.79 2.61 0.04 0.05 22.28 0.81 Store B4 1.04 41.88 0.83 1.95 0.08 0.03 14.90 0.74 Sto re B5 0.18 132.87 0.61 2.14 0.02 0.02 43.00 0.50 Store B6 0.04 45.51 0.55 2.71 0.00 0.05 23.29 0.01 Store B1 0.72 147.30 1.46 2.05 0.06 0.02 69.68 0.21 Store B2 0.11 68.08 1.35 1.63 0.53 0.03 44.21 0.15 Red Calabash 0.28 131.25 1.38 1.26 0.06 0.07 175. 07 1.02 Red Pear 0.10 127.50 1.10 2.60 0.01 0.07 81.69 0.70 Skorospelka Red 0.33 135.81 0.87 1.43 0.66 0.04 68.99 0.01 St. Pierre 0.18 225.94 0.57 1.10 0.77 0.04 61.74 2.47 Stupice 0.31 208.78 1.78 2.47 0.04 0.05 143.68 0.28 Super Sioux 0.23 93.58 0. 56 1.36 0.42 0.02 43.14 1.68 Thai Pink Cherry 0.21 144.84 1.62 2.06 0.03 0.06 70.78 0.04 Thessaloniki 1 0.14 138.32 1.58 9.01 0.03 0.04 61.95 0.36

PAGE 175

175 Table B 1.7. Continued. Variety propyl acetate hexanal cis 2 penten 1 ol glutamatic acid 2 butylacetate 1 octen 3 one cis 3 hexenal methylsalicylate ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr mg/gfw ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr Tigerella Orange 0.41 86.12 0.89 0.70 0.13 0.03 88.72 0.38 Tommy Toe 0.18 128.81 1.58 2.63 0.06 0.08 157.39 1.46 Store A1 0.03 49. 59 0.41 3.09 0.02 0.08 29.09 0.01 Store A2 0.03 34.94 0.76 1.69 0.01 0.06 32.84 0.03 Yellow Jelly Bean 0.04 41.70 0.43 2.03 0.02 0.04 31.82 0.11 Yellow Perfection 0.34 96.66 1.36 1.35 0.49 0.03 158.23 0.24 Zapotec 0.22 91.85 0.35 0.95 0.27 0.01 32.72 0 .35

PAGE 176

176 Table B 1.8. Biochemical composition of fifty varieties of tomatoes. Part 8. Variety trans 2 hexenal b damascenone 2 methyl 1 butanol 2 methyl 2 butenal prenyl acetate hexyl acetate 3 methyl 1 pentanol 2 ethylfuran ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr n g/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr Standard Deviation 5.99 0.00 11.07 5.13 0.03 0.39 0.46 0.05 Ailsa Craig 1 9.91 0.00 27.09 9.89 0.02 0.22 1.20 0.19 Ailsa Craig 2 30.31 0.01 25.25 7.81 0.05 1.45 0.97 0.15 Ailsa Craig 3 9.92 0.00 5.69 3.9 7 0.01 0.69 0.21 0.08 Amish Salad 1.29 0.00 2.66 2.97 0.01 0.17 0.27 0.04 Aunt Ruby's German Green 7.25 0.00 28.44 13.41 0.02 0.38 0.20 0.13 Bloody Butcher 1 1.88 0.00 6.46 2.13 0.01 0.47 0.74 0.09 Bloody Butcher 2 2.89 0.01 5.43 2.48 0.03 0.50 0.62 0. 09 Bloody Butcher 3 6.37 0.00 3.76 2.00 0.01 0.66 0.34 0.04 Brandywine 6.70 0.00 3.75 4.30 0.02 0.66 0.30 0.12 Chadwick Cherry 12.29 0.00 8.78 3.14 0.03 1.03 0.24 0.08 Cherry Roma 1.68 0.01 21.28 14.42 0.02 0.16 1.37 0.11 Clear Pink Slicer 3.71 0.01 4 2.81 19.79 0.01 0.68 0.26 0.13 Dixie Golden Giant 5.30 0.01 3.37 6.72 0.01 0.80 0.32 0.09 Garden Peach 0.82 0.00 16.53 5.94 0.00 0.07 0.41 0.02 Giant Belgium 9.92 0.01 18.14 7.78 0.03 0.53 0.36 0.25 Green Zebra 9.29 0.00 14.42 5.18 0.00 0.20 0.74 0.14 Gulf State Market 2.53 0.00 34.40 15.62 0.01 0.26 0.74 0.09 Kentucky Beefsteak 0.38 0.00 2.12 1.45 0.00 0.10 0.11 0.03 LA1482 27.47 0.00 7.33 5.52 0.01 0.85 0.02 0.13

PAGE 177

177 Table B 1.8. Continued. Variety trans 2 hexenal b damascenone 2 methyl 1 butanol 2 methyl 2 butenal prenyl acetate hexyl acetate 3 methyl 1 pentanol 2 ethylfuran ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr Marmande VFA 1.88 0.01 5.18 3.56 0.01 0.99 0.38 0.14 Matina 5.67 0.01 23.30 6.39 0.04 0.43 1 .48 0.06 Matt's Wild Cherry 0.53 0.00 8.90 1.95 0.00 0.11 0.18 0.01 Mexico Midget 3.42 0.00 24.66 8.86 0.00 0.13 0.52 0.09 Peacevine Cherry 0.88 0.00 40.81 9.34 0.02 0.45 0.25 0.12 Porter 1.41 0.00 2.92 2.36 0.01 0.13 0.42 0.05 Store B3 2.75 0.00 15.5 9 7.52 0.01 1.15 0.76 0.07 Store B4 9.58 0.00 28.00 15.79 0.19 2.03 0.55 0.03 Store B5 0.73 0.00 6.38 6.15 0.01 0.41 0.17 0.08 Store B6 0.29 0.00 21.15 11.60 0.01 0.04 0.17 0.02 Store B1 1.11 0.01 33.35 18.99 0.00 0.53 2.27 0.11 Store B2 0.72 0.00 5.7 4 4.93 0.01 0.19 0.29 0.12 Red Calabash 11.40 0.00 21.39 10.23 0.02 0.32 0.30 0.10 Red Pear 3.04 0.00 7.28 4.41 0.01 0.15 0.64 0.07 Skorospelka Red 2.67 0.00 21.33 14.50 0.02 0.55 0.52 0.14 St. Pierre 2.39 0.00 9.57 3.50 0.01 0.74 0.10 0.10 Stupice 7 .55 0.00 16.51 7.10 0.03 0.34 0.88 0.20 Super Sioux 1.39 0.00 22.80 8.36 0.00 0.25 0.24 0.06 Thai Pink Cherry 2.50 0.00 5.92 3.10 0.02 0.16 1.56 0.21 Thessaloniki 1 2.37 0.00 15.11 5.91 0.01 0.22 1.32 0.15

PAGE 178

178 Table B 1.8. Continued. Variety trans 2 hexen al b damascenone 2 methyl 1 butanol 2 methyl 2 butenal prenyl acetate hexyl acetate 3 methyl 1 pentanol 2 ethylfuran ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr Tigerella Orange 6.71 0.00 9.53 7.99 0.01 0.49 0.19 0.2 2 Tommy Toe 6.13 0.00 18.30 6.53 0.02 0.24 0.77 0.09 Store A1 0.38 0.00 6.84 5.28 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.06 Store A2 0.81 0.00 31.49 19.03 0.01 0.02 0.47 0.10 Yellow Jelly Bean 0.91 0.00 8.39 4.53 0.00 0.08 0.20 0.02 Yellow Perfection 4.83 0.01 24.86 13.23 0.01 0.18 0.64 0.14 Zapotec 1.30 0.00 19.88 12.32 0.01 0.26 0.10 0.14

PAGE 179

179 Table B 1.9. Biochemical composition of fifty varieties of tomatoes. Part 9. Variety isopentyl acetate cis 3 hexenyl acetate benzothiazole benzyl alcohol 3 methyl 2 butenal p anisal dehyde ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr Standard Deviation 0.29 0.78 0.03 0.49 0.33 0.01 Ailsa Craig 1 0.33 1.34 0.06 0.39 0.49 0.01 Ailsa Craig 2 1.31 4.38 0.10 0.73 0.61 0.05 Ailsa Craig 3 0.52 2.46 0.03 0.24 0.20 0.01 Amish Salad 0.12 1.31 0.03 0.30 0.23 0.01 Aunt Ruby's German Green 0.13 1.52 0.06 0.54 0.31 0.00 Bloody Butcher 1 0.69 1.68 0.12 0.22 0.42 0.00 Bloody Butcher 2 0.47 1.67 0.03 0.16 0.35 0.01 Bloody Butcher 3 0.48 2.03 0.04 0.39 0.17 0.01 Brandywine 0. 02 1.59 0.04 0.26 0.34 0.00 Chadwick Cherry 0.45 2.26 0.05 0.50 0.51 0.02 Cherry Roma 0.00 2.37 0.10 0.61 0.34 0.00 Clear Pink Slicer 0.68 2.15 0.02 0.73 0.29 0.01 Dixie Golden Giant 0.17 1.87 0.10 0.31 0.31 0.01 Garden Peach 0.09 0.59 0.08 0.38 0.17 0.00 Giant Belgium 0.10 2.56 0.03 0.19 0.93 0.01 Green Zebra 0.16 1.08 0.03 1.08 0.25 0.00 Gulf State Market 0.54 1.42 0.05 1.47 0.36 0.02 Kentucky Beefsteak 0.01 0.75 0.03 0.10 0.13 0.00 LA1482 0.12 1.62 0.03 0.97 0.09 0.01 Large Red Cherry 0.47 1. 59 0.09 0.37 0.58 0.01 Lemon Drop 0.24 0.75 0.05 1.38 0.26 0.00

PAGE 180

180 Table B 1.9. Continued. Variety isopentyl acetate cis 3 hexenyl acetate benzothiazole benzyl alcohol 3 methyl 2 butenal p anisaldehyde ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr Matt's Wild Cherry 0.03 0.53 0.06 1.46 0.75 0.01 Mexico Midget 0.03 0.89 0.04 1.69 0.14 0.00 Peacevine Cherry 0.04 2.26 0.12 0.60 0.33 0.00 Porter 0.01 1.54 0.07 0.10 0.22 0.00 Store B3 0.07 2.03 0.01 0.51 0.15 0.01 Store B4 0.41 4.17 0.02 0.79 2.25 0.00 Store B5 0.07 1.21 0.03 0.18 0.07 0.00 Store B6 0.00 1.21 0.03 0.19 0.17 0.00 Store B1 0.39 1.05 0.04 0.15 0.22 0.01 Store B2 0.01 0.82 0.10 0.04 0.16 0.00 Red Calabash 0.69 1.36 0.06 0.24 0.58 0.00 Red Pear 0.02 0.85 0.08 0.33 0.41 0. 00 Skorospelka Red 0.56 1.51 0.07 0.61 0.38 0.02 St. Pierre 0.08 1.51 0.03 0.30 0.11 0.01 Stupice 0.16 1.66 0.07 0.32 0.38 0.01 Super Sioux 0.08 1.19 0.04 0.50 0.20 0.00 Thai Pink Cherry 0.02 1.39 0.09 0.13 0.32 0.01 Thessaloniki 1 0.55 1.65 0.04 0. 34 0.56 0.00 Thessaloniki 2 0.07 0.84 0.05 0.21 0.53 0.00 Three Sisters 0.25 1.89 0.04 1.04 0.79 0.02 Tigerella Orange 0.39 2.47 0.01 0.12 0.20 0.01

PAGE 181

181 Table B 1.9. Continued. Variety isopentyl acetate cis 3 hexenyl acetate benzothiazole benzyl alcohol 3 methyl 2 butenal p anisaldehyde ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr ng/gfw/hr Store A2 0.03 0.73 0.06 0.03 0.24 0.00 Yellow Jelly Bean 0.02 0.66 0.03 2.55 0.08 0.00 Yellow Perfection 0.76 1.73 0.02 0.45 0.26 0.00 Zapotec 0.04 0.84 0. 04 0.28 0.11 0.03

PAGE 182

182 LIST OF REFERENCES Abegaz EG, Tandon KS, Scott JW, Baldwin EA, Shewfelt RL. 2004. Partitioning taste from aromatic flavor notes of fresh tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum, Mill) to develop predictive models as a function o f volatile and nonvolatile components. Postharvest Biol.Technol. 34(3):227 35. Alexander L, Grierson D. 2002. Ethylene biosynthesis and action in tomato: a model for climacteric fruit ripening. Journal of Experimental Botany 53(377):2039 55. Alonso A, Ga rca Aliaga R, Garca Martnez S, Ruiz JJ, Carbonell Barrachina AA. 2009. Characterization of Spanish Tomatoes using Aroma Composition and Discriminant Analysis. Food Science and Technology International 15(1):47 55. Arthey VD. 1975. Quality of horticultu ral products. New York: Wiley. 228 p. Baldwin EA, Thompson KA. 2001. Effect of sugar type and concentration on perception of tomato sweetness. Proc Florida State Hort Soc 113287 9. Baldwin EA, Scott JW, Einstein MA, Malundo TMM, Carr BT, Shewfelt RL, Tan don KS. 1998. Relationship between sensory and instrumental analysis for tomato flavor. J.Am.Soc.Hort.Sci. 123(5):906 15. Baldwin EA, Goodner K, Plotto A. 2008. Interaction of Volatiles, Sugars, and Acids on Perception of Tomato Aroma and Flavor Descripto rs. J.Food Sci. 73(6):S294 307. Baldwin EA, Scott JW, Shewmaker CK, Schuch W. 2000. Flavor trivia of tomato aroma: Biochemistry and possible mechanisms for control of important aroma components. HortScience 35(6):1013. Bartoshuk LM. 1991. Sweetness: Hist ory, preference and genetic variability. Food Technol. 45(11):108. Bartoshuk LM, Beauchamp GK. 1994. Chemical Senses. Annu Rev Psychol 45419 49. Bartoshuk LM. 1978. The psychophysics of taste. Am. I. Clin. Nutr. 31(6):1068 77. Bartoshuk LM, Snyder DJ. 2 004. Psychophysical Measurement of Human Taste Experience. In: E. M. Stricker, S. C. Woods, editors. Handbook of Behavioral Neurobiology: Neurobiology of Food and Fluid Intake. 2nd ed. New York: Plenum Publishers. p 89 107. Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB, Green B G, Hoffman HJ, Ko C Lucchina LA, Marks LE, Snyder DJ, Weiffenbach JM. 2004. Valid across group comparisons with labeled scales: the gLMS versus magnitude matching. Physiol.Behav. 82(1):109 14.

PAGE 183

183 Bartoshuk LM. 2000. Comparing Sensory Experiences Across Ind ividuals: Recent Psychophysical Advances Illuminate Genetic Variation in Taste Perception. Chemical Senses 25(4):447 60. Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB, Lucchina LA, Prutkin J, Fast K. 1998. PROP (6 n Propylthiouracil) Supertasters and the Saltiness of NaCla. Ann .N.Y.Acad.Sci. 855(1):793 6. Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB, Chapo AK, Fast K, Yiee JH, Hoffman HJ, Ko C, Snyder DJ. 2004. From psychophysics to the clinic: missteps and advances. Food Quality and Preference 15(7 8):617 32. Berna AZ, Lammertyn J, Buysens S, Di N atale C, Nicola BM. 2005. Mapping consumer liking of tomatoes with fast aroma profiling techniques. Postharvest Biol.Technol. 38(2):115 27. Blakeslee AF. 1932. Genetics of Sensory Thresholds: Taste for Phenyl thio carbamide. Proc Natl Acad Sci 18(1):120 30. Boukobza F, Taylor AJ. 2002. Effect of postharvest treatment on flavour volatiles of tomatoes. Postharvest Biol.Technol. 25(3):321 31. Bruhn CM, Feldman N, Garlitz C, Harwood J, Ivans E, Marshall M, Riley A, Thurber D, Williamson E. 1991. Consumer Pe rceptions Of Quality: Apricots, Cantaloupes, Peaches, Pears, Strawberries, And Tomatoes. J.Food Qual. 14(3):187 95. Buttery RG. 1993. Quantitative and Sensory Aspects of Flavor of Tomato and Other Vegetables and Fruits. In: T. E. Acree, R. Teranishi, edit ors. Flavor science Sensible principles and techniques. 1st ed. Washington, DC: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. p 356 7. Buttery RG, Ling LC, Light DM. 1987. Tomato leaf volatile aroma components J. Agric. Food Chem. 35(6):1039 42. Buttery RG, Ling LC. 1993. V olatile components of tomato fruit and plant parts: relationships and biogenesis. In: E. Teranishi, R. G. Buttery, H. Sugisawa, editors. Bioactive volatile compounds from plants. Washington, DC: ACS. p 22 33. Buttery RG, Takeoka GR, Ling LC. 1995. Furaneol: Odor Threshold and Importance to Tomato Aroma. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 43(6):1638 40. Buttery RG, Teranishi R, Ling LC. 1987. Fresh tomato aroma volatiles: A quantitative study. J. Agric. Food Chem. 35(4):540 4.

PAGE 184

184 Dalal KB, Salunkhe DK, Boe AA, Olson LE. 1965. Certain Physiological and Biochemical Changes in the Developing Tomato Fruit (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). J.Food Sci. 30(3):504 8. Davies JN, Kempton RJ. 1975. Changes in the ind ividual sugars of tomato fruit during ripening. J.Sci.Food Agric. 26(8):1103 10. De Araujo IET, Kringelbach ML, Rolls ET, Hobden P. 2003. Representation of Umami Taste in the Human Brain. Journal of Neurophysiology 90(1):313 9. De Rovira D. 1997. Manual Flavor nomenclature workshop: An odor description and sensory evaluation workshop. Flavor Dynamics, Duffy VB, Bartoshuk LM. 2000. Food Acceptance and Genetic Variation in Taste. J.Am.Diet.Assoc. 100(6):647 55. Duffy VB, Peterson JM, Bartoshuk LM. 2004. Associations between taste genetics, oral sensation and alcohol intake. Physiol.Behav. 82(2 3):435 45. Gaines AD. 2010. Anosmia and hyposmia. Allergy Asthma Proc. 31(3):185 9. Hongsoongnern P, Chambers E. 2008. A lexicon for texture and flavor character istics of fresh and processed tomatoes. J.Sens.Stud. 23(5):583 99. Jackman RL, Gibson HJ, Stanley DW. 1992. Effects of chilling on tomato fruit texture. Physiol.Plantarum 86(4):600 8. Jordan JM, Tandon K, Shaw PE, Goodner KL. 2001. Aromatic Profile of Aq ueous (GC MS) and Gas Chromatography Olfactometry (GC O) Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 49(10):4813 7. Kader AA. 1986. Effects of postharvest handling procedures on toma to quality. Acta Horticulturae 190209. Kader AA, Stevens MA, Albright M, Morris LL. 1978a. Amino acid composition and flavor of fresh tomatoes as influenced by fruit ripeness when harvested. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 103(4):541 4. Kader AA, Morris LL, Ste vens MA, Albright Holton M. 1978b. Composition and flavor quality of fresh market tomatoes as influenced by some postharvest handling procedures. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 103(1):6. Kazeniac SJ, Hall RM. 1970. Flavor Chemistry of Tomato Volatiles. J.Food S ci. 35(5):519 30.

PAGE 185

185 Klee H. 2011. Increaments in sugar concentration are limited by a reduction in yield. e mail communication Klein S, Thorne BM. 2007. Biological psychology. New York, N.Y.: Worth. Krumbein A, Peters P, Brckner B. 2004. Flavour compound s and a quantitative descriptive analysis of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) of different cultivars in short term storage. Postharvest Biol.Technol. 32(1):15 28. L S, Ledauphin S. 2006. You like tomato, I like tomato: Segmentation of consumers w ith missing values. Food Quality and Preference 17(3 4):228 33. Lucier G, Lin BH, Allshouse J, Kantor LS. 2000. Factors affecting tomato consumption in the United States. ERS, USDA (282):26 32. Madhavi DL, Salunkhe DK. 1998. Tomato. In: Kadam S.S., Salun khe D.K., editors. Handbook of vegetable science and technology : production, composition, storage, and processing. New York: Marcel Dekker. p 171. Malundo TMM, Shewfelt RL, Scott JW. 1995a. Flavor quality of fresh tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) a s affected by sugar and acid levels. Postharvest Biol.Technol. 6(1 2):103 10. Malundo TMM, Shewfelt RL, Scott JW. 1995b. Flavor quality of fresh tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) as affected by sugar and acid levels. Postharvest Biol.Technol. 6(1 2): 103 10. Marlatt C, Ho CT, Chien M. 1992. Studies of aroma constituents bound as glycosides in tomato. J. Agric. Food Chem. 40(2):249 52. Marsh KB, Friel EN, Gunson A, Lund C, MacRae E. 2006. Perception of flavour in standardised fruit pulps with addition s of acids or sugars. Food Quality and Preference 17(5):376 86. Maul F, Sargent S, Sims C, Baldwin E, Balaban M, Huber D. 2000. Tomato Flavor and Aroma Quality as Affected by Storage Temperature. J.Food Sci. 65(7):1228 37. Maul F, Sargent SA, Balaban MO, Baldwin EA, Huber DJ, Sims CA. 1998. Aroma volatile profiles from ripe tomato fruit are influenced by physiological maturity at harvest: an application for electronic nose technology. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 123(6):1094 101. Maul F, Sargent SA, Huber DJ Balaban MO, Luzuriaga DA, Baldwin EA. 1997. Non Destructive quality screening of tomato fruit using "electronic nose" technology. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 110(N 01489):188.

PAGE 186

186 Nelson GM. 1998. Biology of taste buds and the clinical problem of taste loss Anat.Rec. 253(3):70 8. Nollet LM, Boylston T. 2007. Molecular Theories of Olfaction. In: L. M. Nollet, editor. Handbook of meat, poultry and seafood quality. 1st ed. Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. p 45. Nunes MCdN. 2008; 2009. Solanaceous and Oth er Fruit Vegetables. 237 309. O'Donnell N. 2006. Heirlooms spice up the garden, and life itself. San Francisco Chronicle F 6(September):6. Petro Turza M. 1986. Flavor of tomato and tomato products. 2(3):309. Prestage S, Linforth RST, Taylor AJ, Lee E, Speirs J, Schuch W. 1999. Volatile production in tomato fruit with modified alcohol dehydrogenase activity. J.Sci.Food Agric. 79(1):131 6. Rao AV, Agarwal S. 1999. Role of lycopene as antioxidant carotenoid in the prevention of chronic diseases: A review Nutr.Res. 19(2):305 23. Rao AV, Waseem Z, Agarwal S. 1998. Lycopene content of tomatoes and tomato products and their contribution to dietary lycopene. Food Res.Int. 31(10):737 41. Ratanachinakorn B, Klieber A, Simons DH. 1997. Effect of short term con trolled atmospheres and maturity on ripening and eating quality of tomatoes. Postharvest Biol.Technol. 11(3):149 54. Reineccius G. 2006. Flavor Chemistry and Technology. Sargent SA, Moretti CL. 2004. The Commercial Storage of Fruits, Vegetables, and Flor ist and Nursery Stocks: Tomato. 2011(February 28): Schuch W. 1994. Improving tomato quality through biotechnology. Food Technology 48(11):78. Scott JW. 2001. Tomato Breeders Rountable 2001: Attempts to elucidate the components of tomato flavor for improv ed breeding efficiency. 2011(March 13):2. Sinesio F, Cammareri M, Moneta E, Navez B, Peparaio M, Causse M, Grandillo S. 2010. Sensory Quality of Fresh French and Dutch Market Tomatoes: A Preference Mapping Study with Italian Consumers. J.Food Sci. 75(1):S 55 67. Smith AF. 2001. The tomato in America : early history, culture, and cookery. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

PAGE 187

187 Snyder LH. 1931. Inherited Taste Deficiency. Science 74(1910):pp. 151 152. Stevens MA, Rick CM. 1986. Genetics and breeding. In: J. G. Atherton, J. Rudich, editors. The Tomato Crop: A Scientific Basis for Improvement. 1st ed. New York, NY, USA: Chapman and Hall. p 35 109. Suslow TV, Cantwell M. 2009. Tomato: Recommendations for maintaining postharvest quality. 2011(March 09):3. Tando n KS. 1997. Odor thresholds and flavor quality of fresh tomatoes. [dissertation]. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia. Tandon KS, Baldwin EA, Shewfelt RL. 2000. Aroma perception of individual volatile compounds in fresh tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) as affected by the medium of evaluation. Postharvest Biol.Technol. 20(3):261 8. Taylor AJ, Hort J. 2004. Measuring proximal stimuli involved in flavour perception. 1 38. Tieman D. 2011. Volatile precursors. Tieman DM, Zeigler M, Schmelz EA, Tay lor MG, Bliss P, Kirst M, Klee HJ. 2006. Identification of loci affecting flavour volatile emissions in tomato fruits. Journal of Experimental Botany 57(4):887 96. USDA Economic Research Service. 2010. U.S. Tomato Statistics. 2011(February 15): Vogel JT, Tieman DM, Sims CA, Odabasi AZ, Clark DG, Klee HJ. 2010. Carotenoid content impacts flavor acceptability in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). J.Sci.Food Agric. 90(13):2233 40. Young H, Gilbert JM, Murray SH, Ball RD. 1996. Causal Effects of Aroma Compounds on Royal Gala Apple Flavours. J.Sci.Food Agric. 71(3):329 36. Yu M, Olson LE, Salunkhe DK. 1967. Precursors of volatile components in tomato fruit I.: Compositional changes during development. Phytochemistry 6(11):1457 65. Zhang L, Cooney RV, Bertram JS. 1991. Carotenoids enhance gap junctional communication and inhibit lipid peroxidation in C3H/10T1/2 cells: relationship to their cancer chemopreventive action. Carcinogenesis 12(11):2109 14.

PAGE 188

188 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Adilia was born in Jinotega, Nicaragua i n August of 1987. Since she was little she learned that success requires effort and responsibility. After graduating with high honors from high school she decided to continue her studies at EARTH University in Costa Rica, where she was awarded with a full scholarship During her college years s he had the opportunity to take several f ood s cience related class es which made her realize that it was the perfect complement for her career goals She believed t hat Central America needed more professionals who und erstand how to handle food products from fter graduating i n 2008 with a Bachelor of Science in agricultural e ngineering she moved to G ainesville, Florida to work at the Sensory Laboratory in the Univ ersity of Florida. She spent six months working on sensory analysis and in the fall of 2009 she enrolled in in the Food Science and Human Nutrition Department at UF. This program gave her the o pportunity to learn about food and researc h skills but most importantly, to develop a sense of perseverance and commitment with self. Her thesis involved sensory and chemical analysis of heirloom tomatoes and although it represented a big challenge, it was crucial for ment. She graduated in August 2011 with a degree in food s cience from the University of Florida and is very excited about future c hallenges and learning opportunities in the food science discipline.