Content uploaded by Pakeza Drkenda
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pakeza Drkenda on Jan 10, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
foods
Article
How Do Consumers Perceive Sensory Attributes of Apple?
Pakeza Drkenda 1, Asmira ´
Culah 1, Nermina Spaho 1, Asima Akagi´c 1and Metka Hudina 2, *
Citation: Drkenda, P.; ´
Culah, A.;
Spaho, N.; Akagi´c, A.; Hudina, M.
How Do Consumers Perceive Sensory
Attributes of Apple?. Foods 2021,10,
2667. https://doi.org/10.3390/
foods10112667
Received: 3 October 2021
Accepted: 29 October 2021
Published: 2 November 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Faculty of Agriculture and Food Sciences, University of Sarajevo, Zmaja od Bosne 8,
71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; p.drkenda@ppf.unsa.ba (P.D.); culah.asmira@gmail.com (A. ´
C.);
n.spaho@ppf.unsa.ba (N.S.); a.akagic@ppf.unsa.ba (A.A.)
2Department of Agronomy, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101,
SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
*Correspondence: metka.hudina@bf.uni-lj.si; Tel.: +386-1320-3142
Abstract:
Pomological characteristics and consumer acceptability of four scab-resistant apple culti-
vars (‘Topaz’, ‘Florina’, ‘Goldstar’ and ‘Golden Orange’) and standard commercial cultivar ‘Golden
Delicious’ were investigated. Consumer acceptability consisted of rating fruit samples on Likert
scales measuring appearance, flavour, size, sweetness, acidity, crispiness, juiciness, skin texture
and general impression. Consumers better evaluated the cultivar ‘Topaz’ sensory characteristics of
flavour, juiciness, taste and general impression than other evaluated scab-resistant apple cultivars
and the cultivar ‘Golden Delicious’. ‘Golden Delicious’ got good grades for appearance, size and
sweetness. ‘Topaz’ also had the best pomological characteristic related to measured fruit firmness,
contents of soluble solids and organic acids. It can be concluded that only the cultivar ‘Topaz’ among
the scab-resistant apple cultivars achieved a good consumer assessment.
Keywords:
consumer assessment; firmness; soluble solids content; titratable acidity; overall impression
1. Introduction
The ongoing trend of fruit production in the world and Europe is ecologically re-
sponsible farming systems (organic and integrated production), which imply minimal
or no application of chemical plant protection products. In order to achieve economical
production in such systems, farmers must grow varieties that are resistant to the most
economically important diseases. The economically important diseases of apple are scab
(Venturia inaequalis (Cooke) G. Wint./Aderh.) and powdery mildew (Podosphaera leucotricha
(Ellis and Everh.) E. S. Salmon).
A large number of resistant apple varieties have been created through breeding
work. Despite the large number of newly created apple cultivars, only twelve of them are
represented in wide production practice [1].
Scab is one of the most important leukotic diseases in apple production. To overcome
this disease, it is necessary to monitor the orchard regularly, and to apply fungicides fre-
quently, which results in high production costs. According to Kühn and Thybo [
2
], resistant
varieties have great ecological and economic advantages. However, the newly resistant
varieties do not always have satisfactory fruit quality that is acceptable to consumers. It
is therefore important to discover which properties are relevant to the consumer accept-
ability of apples. Sensory analysis is a valuable tool for assessing the market potential
and success of resistant apple cultivars. The success of newly developed resistant apple
cultivars depends on their fruit quality, which should be at least equal to that of commercial
cultivars [
3
]. Kellerhals et al. [
4
] also emphasized this. Human perceptual abilities are
important for a complete human life. Consumers often choose a specific apple cultivar
based on their sensory characteristics. The requirements of consumers are changing and
their expectations in terms of fruit quality are increasing [
5
–
7
]. Consumer taste is a dynamic
category that results in the consumption of different cultivars. However, fruit quality is a
complex category and depends on the pomological sensory properties of fruit (size, shape,
Foods 2021,10, 2667. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10112667 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/foods
Foods 2021,10, 2667 2 of 12
skin colour, flavour, taste, juiciness, crispness, firmness etc.), and is affected by agricultural
practices of cultivation and the nutritional richness of the fruit [8–11].
Many authors have done research related to sensory analysis and consumer prefer-
ences of different apple cultivars [
6
,
9
,
12
–
16
]. Although results on the sensory quality of
scab-resistant apple cultivars can be found in the literature [
2
,
3
,
12
,
17
–
22
], no results have
so far been presented from Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H).
Fruit production in B&H has great potential, but is also limited by insufficient knowl-
edge of suitable cultivars. Apple scab (Venturia inaequalis Cooke (Wint)) is the most damag-
ing disease. The best way to avoid this problem is to grow scab-tolerant or resistant apple
cultivars. Because of breeding programs, several scab-resistant cultivars are now available.
However, Bosnian growers lack presence and knowledge about scab-resistant cultivars.
The most popular and important apple cultivar is ‘Golden Delicious’, but this cultivar is
susceptible to scab. The cultivars ‘Golden Orange’ and ‘Goldstar’ could be suitable as
an alternative to ‘Golden Delicious’ for organic fruit production in B&H. There are new
promising scab-resistant cultivars that fruit growers are still waiting for because they do
not know enough about these cultivars and because they are afraid that consumers will
not accept these varieties.
On the other hand, the only known scab-resistant cultivar grown in modern B&H
orchards is ‘Topaz’. Therefore, it is very important to increase the level of knowledge
about new scab-resistant apple cultivars among apple producers and to improve consumer
preference for scab-resistant apple cultivars. Variety selection remains one of the many
challenges farmers face when managing an orchard. Growers must tailor cultivar selection
to their target market.
The introduction and success of a new cultivar are determined by consumer prefer-
ences. However, this is influenced by various parameters [
3
,
9
,
23
,
24
]. It has been reported
that consumer preferences can vary over geographical locations as well as between demo-
graphic groups within a population [
6
,
19
,
25
,
26
]. Taste, aroma, texture and appearance are
considered to be the most important sensory attributes of fruits [27].
Consumer preferences and sensory evaluation of some selected apple cultivars (‘Golden
Delicious’, ‘Florina’, ‘Topaz’ and ‘Goldstar’) have already been studied and the data have
been published [
2
,
28
–
31
]. However, there are no accurate results on consumer preferences
for the apple cultivar ‘Golden Orange’.
The main aim of this study was to evaluate and compare consumer acceptability and
the most important pomological characteristics (fruit size, firmness, total soluble solids
content and total titratable acids) of scab-resistant apple cultivars in comparison with the
commercial cultivar ‘Golden Delicious’. Based on the results of this work, recommendations
could be made to apple producers for the introduction of a wider range of scab-resistant
cultivars into production.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Material
The experimental design included five apple cultivars: four scab-resistant cultivars
(‘Topaz’, ‘Florina’, ‘Goldstar’ and ‘Golden Orange’) and one standard apple commercial
cultivar (‘Golden Delicious’ clone Reinders). The apples were grown in the Drina Valley,
and harvested at optimal maturity. The cultivars were grafted onto rootstock ‘MM106’,
planted at 4
×
2 m, and trained as a central leader. The apple trees were cultivated with
minimum pesticide use, according to the integrated fruit production method [32].
A three-member expert team determined the optimal maturity stage for each of the
investigated varieties based on maturity indicators (iodine starch test, total soluble solids
content, fruit flesh firmness and titratable acid content) and the fruits were harvested at the
commercial maturity stage.
Foods 2021,10, 2667 3 of 12
2.2. Pomological and Main Physicochemical Analysis
At harvest, 150 fruits were selected based on uniformity and absence of damage. After
harvest, the fruits were stored in a cold room at 2
◦
C (
±
1
◦
C), at a relative humidity of 95%.
Before the sensory and pomological analysis, fruit were removed from the cold room and
left for 24 h at room temperature. Thirty fruits were then separated for laboratory analyses
of pomological characteristics, such as fruit weight, fruit flesh firmness, total soluble solids
content and titratable acid content.
Fruit flesh firmness was performed by digital penetrometer twice per fruit: on the
sunny side and on the shaded side. Total soluble solids content was measured using an
Atago digital refractometer and expressed as
◦
Brix. Total titratable acidity was determined
as the % of malic acid by titration of the juice with 0.1 M NaOH.
2.3. Consumer Test
Consumer test sensory analysis of apples was performed with a sensory central
location test (CLT) in the hypermarket ‘KONZUM’ in Sarajevo and an intercept procedure
was used. A team of six students was in charge of presenting samples and keeping records.
They instructed consumers on how to complete the questionnaire. Before the sensory
evaluation of the apples, consumers were asked to fill in a questionnaire, which consisted
of several demographic items related to apple consumption behaviour depending on
gender and age. One hundred and five consumers (65 women and 40 men) tested the
apples. Four age groups were defined: younger than 20 years (14 consumers), 21–42 years
(31 consumers), 42–60 years (40 consumers) and over 60 years (16 consumers).
All samples of apples were presented as whole fruit and sliced in cups labelled with
a three-digit blinding code. A Likert 5pt-scale (where 1 is dislike a lot and 5 is like a lot)
was used. The experiment was set up according to a balanced block design using the Latin
square method. Each consumer evaluated eleven sensory attributes: size, appearance,
colour, firmness, skin texture, juiciness, sweetness, sourness, flavour, taste and overall
(general) impression.
2.4. Statistical Analysis
The trial had a completely randomised design and the data were analysed using
the Statgraphics Plus 4.0 program (Manugistics, Inc.; Rockville, MD, USA). The data of
the pomological analysis and sensory evaluation were tested for differences between the
cultivars using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA; general linear model). Differences
between cultivars were tested with Tukey’s high significance difference (HSD) test at
a
0.05 significant
level. Means and standard deviation (mean
±
Sd) are reported. For
measuring the relation between each pair of attributes, chemical and sensory, the Pearson
correlation coefficient was calculated. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to
treat sensory and pomological results.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Pomological and Physicochemical Parameters of Apples
The results of the basic physicochemical parameters of apples are presented in Table 1.
As can be seen (Table 1), the apple cultivar had a significant impact on all measured
pomological parameters of fruit quality, except for total soluble solids content.
The fruit weight ranged from 149.43 g with ‘Golden Orange’ to 192.77 g with ‘Florina’.
‘Florina’ had a significantly higher fruit weight than the other apple cultivars.
The fruit weight of ‘Florina’ was higher than that reported by Lanauskas et al. [
33
]
and Dan et al. [
18
], but lower than reported by Militaru et al. [
21
]. Dan et al. [
18
] and
Militaru et al.
[
21
] found a lower fruit weight of ‘Golden Delicious’. Militaru et al. [
21
]
reported smaller fruits of ‘Goldstar’ apple. The fruit weight of ‘Topaz’ was higher than
reported by Lanauskas et al. [
33
] and Militaru et al. [
21
], but lower than reported by Greene
and Clements [34].
Foods 2021,10, 2667 4 of 12
Table 1.
Average value of measured fruit weight, flesh firmness content and total soluble solids of the tested apple cultivars
(mean ±standard deviation).
Cultivar Fruit Weight (g) * Fruit Flesh Firmness
(kg·cm−2)
Total Soluble Solids
(TSS, ◦Brix)
Titratable Acids
(TA, %)
Golden Delicious 163.93 b ±11.72 4.12 c ±0.30 13.33 a ±0.58 0.28 b ±0.094
Golden Orange 149.43 b ±9.18 4.34 c ±0.28 12.83 a ±1.89 0.33 b ±0.041
Goldstar 160.88 b ±12.78 6.21 a ±0.44 14.33 a ±0.58 0.42 ab ±0.015
Topaz 160.39 b ±18.18 4.99 b ±0.32 12.33 a ±2.08 0.55 a ±0.015
Florina 192.77 a ±18.52 5.05 b ±0.33 12.33 a ±1.52 0.32 b ±0.054
* Different letters in columns ‘a–c’ indicate significantly different values between cultivars at p≤0.05.
The results presented in Table 1indicate that fruit flesh firmness ranged from
4.12 kg cm−2
to 6.21 kg cm
−2
. ‘Goldstar’ had the highest value of fruit firmness, compared to the values
of the other studied apple cultivars. ‘Golden Delicious’ had significantly the lowest value
of fruit flesh firmness (except in comparation with ‘Golden Orange’).
Péneau et al. [
35
], Dan et al. [
18
] and Bonany et al. [
9
] found even higher values of
fruit flesh firmness of ‘Golden Delicious’. Militaru et al. [
21
] and Kühn and Thybo [
2
]
found lower fruit flesh firmness of ‘Golden Delicious’ than achieved in presented experi-
ment. Fruit flesh firmness of ‘Topaz’ was higher than reported by Militaru et al. [
21
] and
Lanauskas et al. [
33
], but lower than reported by Péneau et al. [
35
]. Dan et al. [
18
] reported
a higher value of fruit flesh firmness with ‘Florina’, but Lanauskas et al. [
33
] cited a lower
value of fruit flesh firmness of the same cultivar. Fruit flesh firmness of ‘Goldstar’ was
higher than that reported by Lanauskas et al. [33].
In terms of total soluble solids content, the highest value was reached by ‘Gold-
star’ (14.33
◦
Brix), while ‘Topaz’ and ‘Florina’ had the lowest value of this parameter
(12.33 ºBrix),
but differences in total soluble solids content between cultivars were small
and not significant (Table 1). Militaru et al. [
21
], Bonany et al. [
9
], Péneau et al. [
35
] and
Greene and Clements [
34
] found a higher content of TSS in ‘Golden Delicious’ and ‘Topaz’.
Kühn and Thybo [2] reported lower TSS content in ‘Golden Delicious’.
Titratable acidity (TA) was determined from 0.28 to 0.55%. ‘Topaz’ had a significantly
higher TA than the other cultivars (except ‘Goldstar’). There was no significant difference
in the content of total titratable acids among the other cultivars.
Péneau et al. [
35
], Kühn and Thybo [
2
], Bonany et al. [
9
] and Militaru et al. [
21
] found
higher TA in ‘Golden Delicious’. Militaru et al. [
21
] reported a lower TA content in ‘Topaz’,
but Péneau et al. [35] reported a higher content of TA in this cultivar.
According to consumer tests, ‘Golden Delicious’ the acceptance threshold is
4.5 kg cm−2
for flesh firmness and 12
◦
Brix for sugar content [
36
]. According to our results, the sugar
and flesh firmness values of ‘Golden Orange’ are closer to these values than the other two
Golden cultivars (‘Golden Delicious’ and ‘Goldstar’).
3.2. Sensory Attributes
The results of the consumer sensory test are presented in accordance with different
sensory attributes in Tables 2–4. The results of external quality attributes of the tasted
apples are shown in Table 2.
Table 2.
Consumer evaluation of the fruit of five apple cultivars for external quality attributes—size,
skin colour and shape (mean ±standard deviation).
Cultivar Fruit Size * Fruit Colour Fruit Appearance
Golden Delicious 4. 70 a ±0.62 4.49 b ±0.71 4.66 a ±0.59
Golden Orange 4.26 c ±0.78 4.34 b ±0.84 4.59 a ±0.68
Goldstar 4.18 c ±0.72 3.98 c ±0.79 4.24 c ±0.76
Topaz 4.41 bc ±0.65 4.63 a ±0.58 4.39 bc ±0.76
Florina 4.52 ab ±0.59 4.73 a ±0.53 4.54 ab ±0.71
* Different letters in columns ‘a–c’ indicate significantly different values between cultivars at p≤0.05.
Foods 2021,10, 2667 5 of 12
Table 3.
Consumer evaluation of the fruit of five apple cultivars for texture quality attributes—
firmness, skin texture and juiciness (mean ±standard deviation).
Cultivar Firmness * Skin Texture Juiciness
Golden Delicious 4.08 b ±0.952 4.10 ab ±0.981 4.23 a ±0.927
Golden Orange 4.38 ab ±0.850 4.22 a ±0.903 4.34 a ±0.855
Goldstar 4.37 ab ±0.764 3.88 b ±0.942 4.35 a ±0.890
Topaz 4.35 ab ±0.798 4.15 ab ±0.822 4.58 a ±0.720
Florina 4.42 a ±0.746 3.93 ab ±1.082 4.37 a ±0.825
* Different letters in columns a, b indicate significantly different values between cultivars at p≤0.05.
Table 4.
Consumer evaluation of the fruit of five apple cultivars for internal quality attributes—
sweetness, sourness, flavour and taste (mean ±standard deviation).
Cultivar Sweetness * Sourness Flavour Taste
Golden Delicious 4.42 a ±0.706 2.97 c ±1.390 4.13 ab ±1.124 4.17 a ±0.950
Golden Orange 4.09 b ±1.016 3.51 a ±1.393 3.85 bc ±1.205 4.15 a ±0.911
Goldstar 3.92 b ±0.921 3.44 bc ±1.261 3.66 c ±1.187 4.13 a ±0.976
Topaz 3.53 b ±1.284 4.03 a ±1.194 4.30 a ±0.944 4.36 a ±0.723
Florina 3.95 c ±0.969 3.35 bc ±1.237 3.82 bc ±1.130 4.13 a ±0.832
* Different letters in columns ‘a–c’ indicate significantly different values between cultivars at p≤0.05.
Sensory values of fruit size ranged from 4.18 to 4.70. ‘Golden Delicious’ had sig-
nificantly better sensory evaluation of fruit size than its resistant clones (‘Goldstar’ and
‘Golden Orange’) and ‘Topaz’. There was no significant difference in fruit size between
the resistant clones of ‘Golden Delicious’ (‘Golden Orange’ and ‘Goldstar’). These results
disagree with the report of Dan et al. [
18
]. It was shown in that study that consumers better
accepted medium-sized fruits than very large fruits.
There were no significant differences between ‘Golden Orange’, ‘Goldstar’ and ‘Topaz’
in terms of fruit size. This means that ‘Golden Orange’ and ‘Goldstar’ have the same
acceptance of fruit size as ‘Topaz’.
The sensory values of fruit colour ranged from 3.98 to 4.73. The cultivars ‘Florina’ and
‘Topaz’ obtained significantly better sensory values for fruit colour than the other apple
cultivars studied (Table 2). It can be concluded that red fruit colour (of ‘Topaz’ and ‘Florina’)
is more accepted by consumers than yellow fruit colour. Significantly lower sensory values
for fruit colour were obtained for ‘Goldstar’.
Fruit colour is one of the important quality parameters for consumers in selecting
their favourite apple fruit [
32
]. Jönsson and Nybom [
19
] in their research on the acceptance
of resistant apple varieties found that an attractive colour (red) and a satisfactory sugar
level is important for acceptance by Swedish consumers. Of the ‘Golden Delicious’ clones,
‘Goldstar’ had a significantly lower score for colour than the other ‘Golden Delicious’ clone
(Table 2).
Sensory values of fruit appearance ranged from 4.24 to 4.66. ‘Golden Delicious’ and
‘Golden Orange’ had the best sensory evaluation for fruit appearance, significantly better
than those of ‘Goldstar’ and ‘Topaz’ (Table 2). ‘Florina’ was significantly better evaluated
than ‘Goldstar’, but not than ‘Topaz’. The appearance of ‘Golden Orange’ fruit is as
acceptable to consumers as the appearance of ‘Golden Delicious’ fruit. Blažek et al. [
29
]
reported that ‘Florina’ and ‘Golden Delicious’ achieved the same appearance rating (agrees
with our results). Some available results confirm that ‘Golden Orange’ was well accepted
by consumers [37].
The results for apple texture are shown in Table 3and it can be seen the examined
cultivars were different in terms of fruit texture.
For firmness, the mean values of the cultivars ranged from 4.08 to 4.42. ‘Florina’ had
a significantly higher mean value for firmness than ‘Golden Delicious’. There were no
significant differences in firmness between ‘Golden Delicious’ and its clones. The mean
values of cultivars for skin texture ranged from 3.88 to 4.22 (Table 3). ‘Golden Orange’ had
a higher value for skin texture than ‘Goldstar‘ but not higher than ‘Golden Delicious’. For
Foods 2021,10, 2667 6 of 12
juiciness, cultivar means ranged from 4.23 to 4.58 and there were no significant differences
between cultivars.
Values of internal quality attributes of apple are shown in Table 3. The average value
for sweetness ranged between 3.53 and 4.42 (Table 4). ‘Golden Delicious’ had the highest
value of sweetness, while ‘Florina’ had the lowest. There were no statistical differences
among the cultivars ‘Golden Orange’, ‘Goldstar’ and ‘Topaz’. ‘Golden Delicious’ had better
value of sweetness than its clones (‘Golden Orange’ and ‘Goldstar’).
Sourness of the different apple cultivars ranged from 2.97 to 4.03 (Table 4). ‘Topaz’ and
‘Golden Orange’ were evaluated as significantly sourer than the other cultivars. ‘Goldstar’
and ‘Florina’ had intermediate values and there were no statistical differences among them
(Table 4). Among the Golden cultivars, the sourness of ‘Golden Orange’ was rated better
than that of ‘Golden Delicious’ and ‘Goldstar’. Blažek et al. [
29
] found that ‘Topaz’ scored
worse in sourness than ‘Golden Delicious’ and ‘Goldstar’.
Cultivar means for flavour ranged between 3.66 and 4.30 (Table 4). ‘Topaz’ and
‘Golden Delicious’ had the highest means of flavour. There were significant differences in
flavour between ‘Topaz’ and ‘Golden Orange’, ‘Goldstar’ and ‘Florina’ as well as between
‘Golden Delicious’ and ‘Goldstar’ (Table 4). Among the Golden cultivars the flavour of
‘Golden Delicious’ was rated better than the sour taste of ‘Goldstar’.
The scores for taste of the different cultivars ranged from 4.13 to 4.36 (Table 4). There
were no statistical differences in fruit taste between the apple cultivars studied. In the
experiment by Blažek et al. [
29
], the taste of cultivar ‘Florina’ was worse than that of ‘Golden
Delicious’. The final consumer evaluation of the tasted apples was overall impression. The
results are given in Figure 1.
Foods 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 13
Figure 1. Mean value of overall sensory impression of the evaluated apple cultivars. The letter ‘a’
indicate that there is no statistically significant differences between cultivars at p ≤ 0.05.
The overall impression of the different apple cultivars ranged from 4.07 to 4.33 (Fig-
ure 1). In terms of overall impression, there were no significant differences among the
examined apple cultivars. All the apple varieties were equal good for the consumers.
Blažek et al. [29] reported that ‘Florina’ had a worse taste than ‘Goldstar’. It should
be noted that no apple cultivar had a score of less than four on six sensory attributes (over-
all impression, taste, size, appearance, firmness and juiciness). The greatest differences in
sensory profiles were found in sourness (Table 4) and the least differences in overall im-
pression (Figure 1).
Table 5 shows the correlation coefficients between overall impression and other sen-
sory attributes (appearance, size, colour, firmness, skin texture, juiciness, sweetness, sour-
ness and flavour).
Figure 1.
Mean value of overall sensory impression of the evaluated apple cultivars. The letter ‘a’
indicate that there is no statistically significant differences between cultivars at p≤0.05.
The overall impression of the different apple cultivars ranged from 4.07 to 4.33
(Figure 1).
In terms of overall impression, there were no significant differences among
the examined apple cultivars. All the apple varieties were equal good for the consumers.
Blažek et al. [
29
] reported that ‘Florina’ had a worse taste than ‘Goldstar’. It should be
noted that no apple cultivar had a score of less than four on six sensory attributes (overall
impression, taste, size, appearance, firmness and juiciness). The greatest differences in
sensory profiles were found in sourness (Table 4) and the least differences in overall
impression (Figure 1).
Table 5shows the correlation coefficients between overall impression and other sensory
attributes (appearance, size, colour, firmness, skin texture, juiciness, sweetness, sourness
and flavour).
Foods 2021,10, 2667 7 of 12
Table 5.
Pearson correlation coefficients between sensory fruit attributes (appearance, size, colour, firmness, skin texture, juiciness, sweetness, sourness and flavour) and pomological fruit
characteristics (weight, flesh firmness, total soluble solids and titratable acids).
Size Colour Appearance Skin
Texture Firmness Juiciness Sweetness Sourness Taste Flavour Overal
Impression
Weight
(g)
Firmness
(kg cm−2)
TSS
(◦Brix) TA (%)
Size 1 0.47 ** 0.43 ** 0.15 ** 0.16 ** 0.14 ** 0.19 ** 0.03 0.18 ** 0.13 ** 0.30 ** 0.11 −0.10 −0.09 −0.34
Colour 1 0.52 ** 0.21 ** 0.25 ** 0.22 ** 0.16 ** 0.14 ** 0.27 ** 0.30 ** 0.37 ** 0.16 0.06 0.26 0.16
Appearance 1 0.29 ** 0.31 ** 0.25 ** 0.23 ** 0.13 ** 0.24 ** 0.25 ** 0.38 ** 0.08 −0.11 0.64 −0.22
Skin texture 1 0.44 ** 0.44 ** 0.29 ** 0.18 ** 0.46 ** 0.41 ** 0.43 ** 0.09 −0.08 0.07 −0.05
Firmness 1 0.60 ** 0.25 ** 0.34 ** 0.54 ** 0.35 ** 0.50 ** 0.18 0.10 −0.02 −0.18
Juiciness 1 0.31 ** 0.31 ** 0.57 ** 0.40 ** 0.51 ** 0.22 0.03 −0.21 −0.03
Sweetnes 1 0.07 0.46 ** 0.26 ** 0.41 ** −0.02 −0.19 0.32 −0.53 *
Sourness 1 0.38 ** 0.26 ** 0.28 ** −0.16 0.22 0.21 0.57 *
Taste 1 0.51 ** 0.65 ** −0.01 0.25 −0.13 0.42
Flavour 1 0.49 * 0.09 0.04 −0.34 0.25
Overal impression
1 0.10 −0.18 0.17 0.16
Weight (g) 1 0.02 −0.32 −0.50
Firmness
(kg cm−2)1 0.33 0.45
TSS (ºBrix) 1 −0.05
TA (%) 1
* Correlation is significant at a 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at a 0.01 level (2-tailed). TSS, total soluble solids; TA, tittratable acids.
Foods 2021,10, 2667 8 of 12
There was a significant correlation between titratable acidity and the sensory attributes
sweetness and sourness (r=−0.53, p= 0.05; r= 0.57, p= 0.05).
It is interesting to note that the highest correlation was obtained between taste and
overall impression (r= 0.65, p= 0.01). This agrees with a previous study of Jönsson and
Nybom [19] who reported that taste is the most important factor for overall impression.
Overall impression was also slightly correlated with juiciness (r= 0.51, p= 0.01) and
firmness (r= 0.50, p= 0.01). There was no strong correlation between overall impression and
other sensory attributes of the examined apple cultivars (Table 5).
Dan et al.
[
18
] reported
that overall impression correlated only between juiciness and taste and, with some tolerance,
with fruit size. The results of Péneau et al. [
38
] showed that freshness, together with taste and
aroma, was a decisive attribute for selecting apples.
Mieszczakowska-Fr ˛ac et al.
[
30
] reported
a strong correlation between overall quality and aroma (r= 0.545).
3.3. Consumer Profile Data
A total 105 consumers participated in the testing. There were 65 females (61%) and
40 males
(39%). There were six consumers (5.7%) aged 10–20 years, 37 consumers (35.2%)
in the age group 21–42 years, 50 consumers (47.6%) were 42–60 years old and 12 consumers
(11.4%) were older than 60 years.
Overall impression for female consumers had the strongest correlation with taste,
followed by juiciness, sweetness and flavour, whereas appearance, skin texture and firm-
ness had no influence at all (Table 6). The overall impression among male consumers was
positive in terms of firmness and skin texture. However, a negative correlation was found
between these attributes in female consumers.
Table 6.
Pearson correlation coefficients between overall impression and other sensory attributes (appearance, size, colour,
firmness, skin texture, juiciness, sweetness, sourness and flavour) by different gender and demographic groups.
Overall
Impression Size Colour Appearance Skin
Texture Firmness Juiciness Sweetness Sourness Taste Flavour
1. Gender groups
Men 0.39 ** 0.42 * 0.43 ** 0.44 ** 0.57 ** 0.47 ** 0.26 ** 0.126 0.60 * 0.48 **
Women 0.24 ** 0.32 ** 0.02 −0.09 −0.10 0.53 ** 0.49 ** 0.35 ** 0.66 ** 0.49 **
2. Age groups
Younger than 20
0.18 0.36 0.54 ** −0.05 0.10 0.03 0.09 0.43* 0.27 0.61 **
21–42 years 0.20 ** 0.37 ** 0.27 ** 0.31 ** 0.55 ** 0.47 ** 0.38 ** 0.29 ** 0.66 ** 0.50 **
43–60 years 0.36 ** 0.39 ** 0.43 ** 0.50 ** 0.49 ** 0.57 ** 0.45 ** 0.63 ** 0.29 ** 0.50 **
Over 60 years 0.39 ** 0.32 * 0.43 ** 0.60 ** 0.59 ** 0.58 ** 0.42 ** 0.28 * 0.85 ** 0.43**
* Correlation is significant at a 0.05 level (2-tailed); ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
For male consumers, taste was the most important factor for overall impression,
followed by firmness, flavour and juiciness, whereas sourness had no influence at all.
Flavour (followed by appearance and sourness) was the most important factor for overall
impression for the youngest consumers. The other evaluated attributes had no influence
on liking apple cultivars (Table 6). This result agrees with Dan at al. [
18
], who reported
that flavour, together with taste, was the attribute that influenced consumers’ preferences
the most, so it is important to be pleasant and balanced. For consumers between the
ages of
21 and 42 years,
overall impression significantly correlated with taste, followed
by firmness, flavour and juiciness (Table 6). Overall impression for the consumers aged
between 43 and 60 years had the strongest correlation with sourness, followed by juiciness,
flavour and skin texture. Taste, followed by skin texture, firmness and juiciness significantly
correlated with overall impression for the oldest consumers.
3.4. Principal Component Analysis
Principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted to establish the relationships
between sensory attributes, pomological and physicochemical parameters of the six tested
apple cultivars (Figure 2). In accordance with the aim of this study, it is interesting to note
Foods 2021,10, 2667 9 of 12
the relation between ‘Golden Delicious’ and the four scab-resistant apple cultivars. In
this PCA model, 78.56% of total data variance was explained by the two first components.
Figure 2shows the score and loading plots corresponding to component 1 vs. component 2
from the PCA model.
Foods 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 13
3.4. Principal Component Analysis
Principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted to establish the relationships be-
tween sensory attributes, pomological and physicochemical parameters of the six tested
apple cultivars (Figure 2). In accordance with the aim of this study, it is interesting to note
the relation between ‘Golden Delicious’ and the four scab-resistant apple cultivars. In this
PCA model, 78.56% of total data variance was explained by the two first components.
Figure 2 shows the score and loading plots corresponding to component 1 vs. component
2 from the PCA model.
Figure 2. Principal component biplot of sensory and pomological attributes of different apple cul-
tivars in the first and second component. Abbreviations: App—appearance; Flav—Flavour; Firm—
Firmness; Fl firm—Fruit flesh firmness—kg cm−2; Juic—Juiciness; Ov imp—Overall impression;
Sour—Sourness; Swee—Sweetness; TA—Total titratable acids—%, Skint—Skin texture; TSS—
Total soluble solid contents—°Brix; Weig—Fruit weight—g.
In the plot of sensory attributes, sourness, juiciness, taste, flavour, overall impression
as well as the content of total titratable acids, are situated in the positive part of component
1. Sweetness and total soluble solids attributes are on the opposite, negative part of com-
ponent 1.
The second component in the negative part was significantly described by fruit flesh
firmness, firmness and total soluble solids content. The external attributes, such as fruit
size and appearance, followed by flavour, skin texture and overall impression, were situ-
ated in the positive part of component 2. ‘Golden Delicious’ is predominantly determined
by fruit size, appearance, skin texture, colour, sweetness, flavour and overall impression.
It means that consumers better accepted medium-sized fruits than very large fruits (Com-
ponent 1).
The plot in Figure 2 clearly shows that ‘Golden Delicious’ and ‘Goldstar’ are located
in the negative part of component 2.
‘Goldstar’ is predominantly determined by firmness, fruit flesh firmness and total
soluble solids content. These are the characteristics that distinguish ‘Goldstar’ from the
other tested cultivars and, because of that, it was less acceptable for the consumers.
‘Topaz’ is the only cultivar located on the right side of the first component, diagonally
opposite to ‘Golden Delicious’. It can be seen that ‘Topaz’ is determined mainly by attrib-
utes determined by component 1. These are the sensory attributes of taste, flavour, juici-
ness and sourness, but also the content of total titratable acids in the fruit. These parame-
ters distinguish ‘Topaz’ from ‘Golden Delicious’. ‘Topaz’ was therefore the best evaluated
cultivar by consumers, which is in accordance with other research that has evaluated this
Figure 2.
Principal component biplot of sensory and pomological attributes of different apple
cultivars in the first and second component. Abbreviations: App—appearance; Flav—Flavour; Firm—
Firmness; Fl firm—Fruit flesh firmness—kg cm
−2
; Juic—Juiciness; Ov imp—Overall impression;
Sour—Sourness; Swee—Sweetness; TA—Total titratable acids—%, Skint—Skin texture; TSS—Total
soluble solid contents—◦Brix; Weig—Fruit weight—g.
In the plot of sensory attributes, sourness, juiciness, taste, flavour, overall impres-
sion as well as the content of total titratable acids, are situated in the positive part of
component 1.
Sweetness and total soluble solids attributes are on the opposite, negative
part of component 1.
The second component in the negative part was significantly described by fruit flesh
firmness, firmness and total soluble solids content. The external attributes, such as fruit size
and appearance, followed by flavour, skin texture and overall impression, were situated in
the positive part of component 2. ‘Golden Delicious’ is predominantly determined by fruit
size, appearance, skin texture, colour, sweetness, flavour and overall impression. It means
that consumers better accepted medium-sized fruits than very large fruits (Component 1).
The plot in Figure 2clearly shows that ‘Golden Delicious’ and ‘Goldstar’ are located
in the negative part of component 2.
‘Goldstar’ is predominantly determined by firmness, fruit flesh firmness and total
soluble solids content. These are the characteristics that distinguish ‘Goldstar’ from the
other tested cultivars and, because of that, it was less acceptable for the consumers.
‘Topaz’ is the only cultivar located on the right side of the first component, diago-
nally opposite to ‘Golden Delicious’. It can be seen that ‘Topaz’ is determined mainly by
attributes determined by component 1. These are the sensory attributes of taste, flavour,
juiciness and sourness, but also the content of total titratable acids in the fruit. These
parameters distinguish ‘Topaz’ from ‘Golden Delicious’. ‘Topaz’ was therefore the best
evaluated cultivar by consumers, which is in accordance with other research that has
evaluated this cultivar as well accepted. However, a common characteristic of ‘Topaz’
and ‘Golden Delicious’ is good overall impression. That means that these two varieties
are generally well accepted. ‘Golden Delicious’ is better evaluated than ‘Topaz’ mainly
in terms of external attributes (size and shape), but also in terms of the chemical sensory
attribute of sweetness.
Foods 2021,10, 2667 10 of 12
Other scab-resistant cultivars (‘Golden Orange’ as well as ‘Florina’) are located around
the central zone of the biplot of Figure 2. This means that these cultivars are not affected
by any of their characteristics, in either a positive or a negative sense. Principal compo-
nent analysis (PCA) was also conducted to determine the relationships between sensory
attributes and different age groups of consumers (Figure 3).
Foods 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 13
cultivar as well accepted. However, a common characteristic of ‘Topaz’ and ‘Golden De-
licious’ is good overall impression. That means that these two varieties are generally well
accepted. ‘Golden Delicious’ is better evaluated than ‘Topaz’ mainly in terms of external
attributes (size and shape), but also in terms of the chemical sensory attribute of sweet-
ness.
Other scab-resistant cultivars (‘Golden Orange’ as well as ‘Florina’) are located
around the central zone of the biplot of Figure 2. This means that these cultivars are not
affected by any of their characteristics, in either a positive or a negative sense. Principal
component analysis (PCA) was also conducted to determine the relationships between
sensory attributes and different age groups of consumers (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Principal component biplot of apple sensory attributes by different age group.
For the middle-aged consumer groups (20–42 and 43–60 years), the most important
sensory characteristics of apples are firmness, juiciness, flavour, sourness and skin texture
(positive part of component 1 in Figure 3). However, it is noticeable that skin texture is
particularly important for the 20–42 age group (negative part of component 2 in Figure 3).
For the youngest age group, the most important attributes of apple cultivars were taste,
size and sweetness (positive part of component 1 in Figure 3). The oldest age group de-
fined colour, firmness, appearance, size and sweetness as the dominant attributes (posi-
tive part of component 2 in Figure 3).
4. Conclusions
This study confirms that sensory analysis of consumer acceptance can be a good tool
for the evaluation of apple cultivars. The results obtained confirm that it is possible to
apply sensory analysis of consumer acceptance to understand the real impact of scab-re-
sistant apple cultivars on consumer perception of apple fruit quality. In terms of many
sensory attributes, the commercial cultivar ‘Golden Delicious’ is still more acceptable than
the other scab-resistant apple cultivars (in size and sweetness better than both clones, in
flavour and colour better than ‘Goldstar’). The only exception is ‘Topaz’. Among the scab-
resistant apple cultivars, ‘Topaz’ scored the best consumer rating, followed by ‘Florina’.
‘Topaz’ received better scores than ‘Golden Delicious’ in terms of colour and sourness.
Florina scored better than Golden Delicious in terms of colour. ‘Golden Orange’ scored
better than ‘Golden Delicious’ in terms of skin texture. There were no significant differ-
ences in the attributes of juiciness and liking. The other examined scab-resistant clones of
the cultivar ‘Golden Delicious’ require further breeding work in terms of pomological and
sensory characteristics before consumers accept them.
Figure 3. Principal component biplot of apple sensory attributes by different age group.
For the middle-aged consumer groups (20–42 and 43–60 years), the most important
sensory characteristics of apples are firmness, juiciness, flavour, sourness and skin texture
(positive part of component 1 in Figure 3). However, it is noticeable that skin texture is
particularly important for the 20–42 age group (negative part of component 2 in Figure 3).
For the youngest age group, the most important attributes of apple cultivars were taste,
size and sweetness (positive part of component 1 in Figure 3). The oldest age group defined
colour, firmness, appearance, size and sweetness as the dominant attributes (positive part
of component 2 in Figure 3).
4. Conclusions
This study confirms that sensory analysis of consumer acceptance can be a good tool
for the evaluation of apple cultivars. The results obtained confirm that it is possible to apply
sensory analysis of consumer acceptance to understand the real impact of scab-resistant
apple cultivars on consumer perception of apple fruit quality. In terms of many sensory
attributes, the commercial cultivar ‘Golden Delicious’ is still more acceptable than the other
scab-resistant apple cultivars (in size and sweetness better than both clones, in flavour and
colour better than ‘Goldstar’). The only exception is ‘Topaz’. Among the scab-resistant
apple cultivars, ‘Topaz’ scored the best consumer rating, followed by ‘Florina’. ‘Topaz’
received better scores than ‘Golden Delicious’ in terms of colour and sourness. Florina
scored better than Golden Delicious in terms of colour. ‘Golden Orange’ scored better than
‘Golden Delicious’ in terms of skin texture. There were no significant differences in the
attributes of juiciness and liking. The other examined scab-resistant clones of the cultivar
‘Golden Delicious’ require further breeding work in terms of pomological and sensory
characteristics before consumers accept them.
Author Contributions:
P.D.: conceptualization, P.D., N.S., A.A. and M.H.; methodology, P.D., N.S.
and M.H.; data curation, P.D.; formal analysis, P.D. and A. ´
C.; investigation, P.D. and A. ´
C.; writing—
original draft preparation, P.D. and A.A.; funding acquisition, P.D. and M.H.; writing—review and
editing, M.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Foods 2021,10, 2667 11 of 12
Funding:
This research was funded under the programme Introduction of new fruit genotypes
in the area of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, funded by the Ministry of Agriculture,
Water Management and Forestry of the Federation of Bosnia and Hercegovina and the programme
Horticulture No. P4-0013-0481 funded by the Slovenian Research Agency.
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in
the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data are available at corresponding author on reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Hecke, K.; Herbinger, K.; Veberic, R.; Trobec, M.; Toplak, H.; Stampar, F.; Keppel, H.; Grill, D. Sugar-, acid- and phenol contents in
apple cultivars from organic and integrated fruit cultivation. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2006,60, 1136–1140. [CrossRef]
2. Kühn, B.F.; Thybo, A.K. Sensory quality of scab-resistant apple cultivars. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2001,23, 41–50. [CrossRef]
3.
Granger, R.L.; Khanizadeh, S.; Fortin, J.; Lapsley, K.; Meheriuk, M. Sensory evaluation of several scab resistant apple genotypes.
Fruit Var. J. 1992,46, 75–79. [CrossRef]
4. Kellerhals, M.; Kesper, C.; Wolewinski, K.; Krebs, C. Disease resistant apple cultivars. Obst Weinbau 2001,137, 642–645.
5.
Harker, F.R.; Amos, R.L.; Echeverria, G.; Gunson, A. Influence of texture on taste: Insights gained during studies of hardness,
juiciness, and sweetness of apple fruit. J. Food Sci. 2006,71, 77–82. [CrossRef]
6.
Seppä, L.; Railio, J.; Vehkalahti, K.; Tahvonen, R.; Tuorila, H. Hedonic responses and individual definitions of an ideal apple as
predictors of choice. J. Sens. Stud. 2013,28, 346–357. [CrossRef]
7.
Hoehn, E.; Gasser, F.; Guggenbuhl, B.; Kunsch, U. Efficacy of instrumental measurements for determination of minimum
requirements of firmness, soluble solids, and acidity of several apple varieties in comparison to consumer expectations. Postharvest
Biol. Technol. 2003,27, 27–37. [CrossRef]
8.
Abbott, J.A.; Saftner, R.A.; Gross, K.C.; Vinyard, B.T.; Janick, J. Consumer evaluation and quality measurement of fresh-cut slices
of ‘Fuji’, ‘Golden Delicious’, ‘Goldrush’ and ‘Granny Smith’ apples. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2004,33, 127–140. [CrossRef]
9.
Bonany, J.; Buehler, A.; Carbó, J.; Codarin, C.; Donati, F.; Echeverria, G.; Egger, S.; Guerra, W.; Hilaire, C.; Höller, I.; et al.
Preference mapping of apple varieties in Europe. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014,32, 317–329. [CrossRef]
10.
Sestras, R.; Ardelean, M.; Jircan, D. Performances of several “classical” apple varieties in the environment of middle Transylvania.
Bull. Univ. Agric. Sci. Vet. Med. Cluj Napoca Hortic. 2003,60, 163.
11.
Alihodzic, A.; Gasi, F.; Drkenda, P.; Akagic, A.; Vranac, A.; Meland, M.; Music, O.; Spaho, N. Sensory acceptability of the
autochthonous fruits of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Erwerbs Obstbau 2018,60, 247–252. [CrossRef]
12.
Miller, S.; Hampson, C.; McNew, R.; Berkett, L.; Brown, S.; Clements, J.; Crassweller, R.; Garcia, E.; Greene, D.; Greene, G.
Performance of apple cultivars in the 1995 NE-183 regional project planting: III. Fruit sensory characteristics. J. Am. Pomol. Soc.
2005,59, 28–43.
13. Hoehn, E.; Guggenbühl, B. Anforderungen des Marktes an die Apfelsorte Golden Delicious. Agrarforschung 1999,6, 341–344.
14.
Jaeger, S.R.; Wakeling, I.N.; MacFie, H.J.H. Consumer preferences for fresh and aged apples: A cross-cultural comparison. Food
Qual. Prefer. 1998,9, 355–366. [CrossRef]
15.
Jesionkowska, K.; Konopacka, D.; Plocharski, W. The quality of apples—Preferences among consumers from Skierniewice, Poland.
J. Fruit Ornam. Plant Res. 2006,140, 173–182.
16.
Tomala, K.; Baryłko-Pikielna, N.; Jankowski, P.; Jeziorekand, K.; Wasiak-Zys, G. Acceptability of scab-resistant versus conventional
apple cultivars by Polish adult and young consumers. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2009,89, 1035–1045. [CrossRef]
17.
Cmelik, Z.; Druzic, J.; Cvjetkovic, B.; Dugalic, K. Sensory evaluation of fruit of some scab resistant apple varieties. Pomol. Croat.
2008,14, 119–128. [CrossRef]
18.
Dan, C.;
S
,
erban, C.; Sestras, A.F.; Militaru, M.; Morariu, P.; Sestras, R.E. Consumer perception concerning apple fruit quality,
depending on cultivars and hedonic scale of evaluation—A case study. Not. Sci. Biol. 2015,7, 140–149. [CrossRef]
19.
Jönsson, Å.; Nybom, H. Consumer evaluation of scab-resistant apple cultivars in Sweden. Agric. Food Sci.
2006
,15, 388–401.
[CrossRef]
20.
Kellerhals, M.; Hohn, E.; Casutt, M.; Guggenbühl, B. Consumer reactions on new disease resistant apple cultivars. European
project DARE (Durable Apple Resistance in Europe). Newsletter 2001,4, 7–11.
21.
Militaru, M.; De Lapparent, E.; Butac, M.; Nicola, C. Fruit quality evaluation of some scab (Venturia inaequalis) resistant apple
cultivars. Sci. Pap. R.I.F.G. Pitesti 2010,26, 16–19.
22. Zimmer, J. Testing of scab resistant apple cultivars at the Ahrweiler experimental station. Erwerbs Obstbau 1999,41, 185–191.
23.
Harker, F.; Gunson, F.; Jaeger, S. The case for fruit quality: An interpretive review of consumer attitudes, and preferences for
apples. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2003,28, 333–347. [CrossRef]
24.
Mehinagic, E.; Royer, G.; Symoneaux, R.; Bertrand, D.; Jourjon, F. Prediction of the sensory quality of apples by physical
measurements. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2004,34, 257–269. [CrossRef]
25.
Hampson, C.; Quamme, H. Use of preference testing to identify tolerance limits for fruit visual attributes in apple breeding. Hort.
Sci. 2000,35, 921–924. [CrossRef]
Foods 2021,10, 2667 12 of 12
26.
Richards, T. A discrete/continuous model of fruit promotion, advertising, and response segmentation. Agri Bus.
2000
,16, 179–196.
[CrossRef]
27.
Colaric, M.; Veberic, R.; Stampar, F.; Hudina, M. Evaluation of peach and nectarine fruit quality and correlations between sensory
and chemical attributes. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2005,85, 2611–2616. [CrossRef]
28.
Neri, F.; Brigati, S.; Folchi, A.; Gualanduzzi, S.; Pratella, G.C. Storage of scab resistant apples: Bio-pathological and quality aspects.
Acta Hortic. 2002,595, 127–141. [CrossRef]
29.
Blažek, J.; Paprštein, F.; Zelený, L.; Kˇrelinová, J. Results of public tastings of apple novelties at the end of the storage seasons
during the last 10 years. Hort. Sci. 2015,42, 53–60. [CrossRef]
30.
Mieszczakowska-Fr ˛ac, M.; Płocharski, W.; Kruczy´nska, D.; Markowski, J. Scab resistant apple cultivars for juice production. J.
Hortic. Res. 2021,29, 23–34. [CrossRef]
31.
Konopacka, D.; Kaczmarek, U.; Matulska, A.; Wawrzy´nczak, A.; Kruczy´nska, D.; Rutkowski, K.P. The comparison of sensory
quality and processing potential of ‘Topaz’ apples grown in organic orchards and orchards managed in integrated production
system. J. Fruit Ornam. Plant Res. 2012,2, 51–61. [CrossRef]
32.
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. Tehnološka Navodila za Integrirano Pridelavo Sadja. 2016. Available online:
https://www.gov.si/teme/integrirana-pridelava/ (accessed on 5 June 2021).
33.
Lanauskas, J.; Valiuškait
˙
e, A.; Kviklien
˙
e, N.; Sasnauskas, A.; Uselis, N. Assessment of apple cultivars for organic fruit cultivation.
Agron. Res. 2009,7, 363–368.
34. Greene, D.W.; Clements, J. Consumer evaluation of new, antique, and little known apple varieties. Fruit Notes 2007,72, 1–13.
35.
Péneau, S.; Brockhoff, P.B.; Hoehn, E.; Escher, F.; Nuessli, J. Relating consumer evaluation of apple freshness to sensory and
physico-chemical measurements. J. Sens. Stud. 2007,22, 313–335. [CrossRef]
36.
Elsheshetawy, H.E.; Mossad, A.; Elhelew, W.K.; Farina, V. Comparative study on the quality characteristics of some Egyptian
mango cultivars used for food processing. Ann. Agric. Sci. 2016,61, 49–56. [CrossRef]
37. Weibel, F.; Tschabold, J.L.; Suter, F.; Häseli, A. Welche Sorten sind am besten? Bioaktuell 2005,5, 8–11.
38.
Péneau, S.; Hoehn, E.; Roth, H.-R.; Escher, F.; Nuessli, J. Importance and consumer perception of freshness of apples. Food Qual.
Prefer. 2006,17, 9–19. [CrossRef]
