JFS E: Food Engineering and Physical Properties

Physical Properties, Sensory Attributes, and

Consumer Preference of Pear Fruit Leather
XUGUANG HUANG AND FU-HUNG HSIEH
UGUANG

ABSTRA
ABSTRACT CT
CT:: P ear fr
Pear uit leathers w
fruit er
wereree pr epar
prepar
epareded bbyy dr ying a mixtur
drying mixture e of pear juice concentr
concentrate ate
ate,, pectin, cor
cornn syr up
up,, and
syrup
water at 70 °C for 8 h. The effects of ingr edients on textur
ingredients texturee, color
color,, micr obial gr
microbial groowth, moistur
moisture e content (MC), water
activity ((a
aw), glass tr ansition temper
transition temperatur atur
aturee ((T
Tg), and sensor
sensory y attr ibutes w
attributes er
wer e inv
ere estigated. P
investigated. ectin was the most signifi-
Pectin
cant independent vvar ar iable that affected the pr
ariable oper
proper ties of inter
operties est. This was follo
interest. wed b
follow byy initial moistur
moisture e content and
corn syr
corn up
up.. G
syrup lass tr
Glass ansition temper
transition temperatur atur
aturee ((T
Tg) was not useful for pr edicting micr
predicting obiological attr
microbiological ibutes but had str
attributes ong
strong
correlations with instr
correlations umental and sensor
instrumental sensory y har dness and chewiness
hardness chewiness.. The rresults
esults fr om par
from tial least squar
partial squareses analysis
(PLS) indicate instr umental har
instrumental dness
dness,, chewiness
hardness chewiness,, and cohesiv eness could be used to pr
cohesiveness edict their corr
predict esponding
corresponding
sensor
sensory y attr ibutes
ibutes.. The consumer liking of pear fr
attributes uit leather could be incr
fruit eased b
increased byy rraising
aising their fr uit ar
fruit oma, sw
aroma, eet-
sweet-
ness
ness,, tar tness
tness,, and shininess
tartness shininess..
Keywor
eywords:ds: physical pr oper
proper ties
ties,, pear
operties pear,, Pyrus communis
communis,, fr uit leather
fruit leather,, glass transition temper
transition temperaturatur
aturee, sensor
sensory y attributes
attributes

Introduction

E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties

and Che Man 1996; Irwandi and others 1998a, 1998b). Vijayanand

A ccording to the United States Dept. of Agriculture’s Economic

Research Service report A Century of Change in America’s Eating
Patterns, per capita fruit consumption increased 80 lb from 1919 to
1998 (Putnam 2000). Consuming more fruit has been symbolic for
the trend of a healthy life style. Restructured fruit, such as fruit leath-
er, can be an economic and convenient value-added substitute for
natural fruits as a source of a variety of nutrient elements, especially
vitamin C; in addition, it can also be a useful outlet for low-grade
fruits and byproducts from other processes using fruits. Furthermore,
fruit leather, like most other restructured fruits, has far less calories
(<100 kcals per serving) than many other snacks.
Fruit leather is made by drying fruit puree or a mixture of fruit
juice concentrate and other ingredients on a flat surface in an oven,
desiccator, or in direct sunlight. Almost any type of fruit is suitable
for making fruit leathers, including apples, apricots, berries, grapes,
jackfruits, kiwifruits, oranges, papayas, peaches, pears, tomato, and
various other fruits (Raab and Oehler 1976; Ayotte 1980; MacKen-
zie and Strachan 1981; Moyls 1987; Brady 1989; Chauhan and others
1993; Irwandi and Che Man 1996; Che Man and Sin 1997; Chen and
others 2001; Maskan and others 2002; Babalola and others 2002).
Fruit leather is easy to eat, convenient to pack, and makes an ide-
al snack almost anywhere. It is even eaten by astronauts during
space exploration and armed personnel in action (Torrey 1974).
Although fruit leathers are popular in North America, it is surpris-
ing that most of the research on product development and formu-
lation optimization occurred in other locations, especially Asian
countries. Chan and Cavaletto (1978) reported their research on the
dehydration and storage stability of papaya leather. Lodge (1981)
outlined a novel process of kiwifruit leather production. Some re-
searchers in Malaysia reported their studies on fruit leather focus-
ing mainly on the consumer acceptance of the durian and jackfruit
leathers (Che Man and Sin 1997; Che Man and others 1997; Irwandi
MS 20030517 Submitted 9/9/03, Revised 12/27/03, Accepted 11/15/04. Au-
thors are with Depts. of Biological Engineering and Food Science, Univ. of
Missouri, 248 Biological Engineering Building, 1406 E. Rollins St., Colum-
bia, MO 65211-5200. Direct inquiries to author Hsieh (E-mail:
HsiehF@missouri.edu).
and others (2000) developed a new process for Guava fruit bars. In
America in the 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and
some universities’ extension services produced various recipes of
fruit leather for home production (Raab and Oehler 1976; Ayotte
1980; Brady 1989). However, very little has been reported on its
texture attributes, which are critical for consumer acceptance. In
addition, the glass transition temperature, which may play an im-
portant role on the texture properties of fruit leather, has never been
reported for the fruit leather. The objectives of this research were to
study to what extent physical properties (with an emphasis on glass
transition temperature and instrumental texture measurements) are
correlated with sensory attributes (with a focus on texture) using
pear juice leather as a model.
Materials and Methods
Sample prepar
prepar ation and stor
eparation age
storage
Pear juice concentrate purchased from TreeTop ® (Lot nr
G221023, Prosser, Wash., U.S.A.) and corn syrup from Cargill (Clear-
Sweet® 63/43, Lot nr 6044, Memphis, Tenn., U.S.A.) were stored in
a dark chamber at 5 °C until used. Pectin was purchased from Da-
nisco (Grindsted® P SS200, Lot nr 2055558, New Century, Kans.,
U.S.A.). Table 1 shows the pear fruit leather formulation. There were
eighteen treatments based on a 3 ⫻ 3 ⫻ 2 full factorial design in
which 3 ingredients (pectin, water, and corn syrup) with 3 levels
were blended homogeneously with pear concentrate as the base.
The distilled water (23 °C) was homogenously mixed into the pre-
blended mixture of pear concentrate and corn syrup (both at 5 °C)
with a presanitized Sunbeam Mixmaster blender (Model nr 2458,
Niles, Ill., U.S.A.) for 1 min before the addition of pectin to prevent
forming lumps. Two 400 g batches of final mixture were blended for
an additional 3 min. Each treatment batch was poured into clean
plastic containers with approximately 7 ⫻ 103 mm2 flat bottom,
about 35 g in each, a weight so that the height of the fruit leather
sheet could be controlled at approximately 2.85 mm.
The containers with sample were left on the benchtop at 23 °C
until the mixture inside was evenly distributed (within about 1 min).

© 2005 Institute of Food Technologists Vol. 70, Nr. 3, 2005—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE E177
Further reproduction without permission is prohibited Published on Web 3/15/2005
 Pear fruit leather properties . . .

Table 1—Effect of ingredient amounts on physical parameters and total yeast and mold count (n = 6)a
Formulationb
Water % Pectin % Corn syrup TYMC
Product (w/w) (w/w) % (w/w) L a b MC (%) aw Tg (°C) (CFU/g)
P1 4 16 0 47.75 6.70 14.45 12.13 0.44 –27.2 0
P2 4 16 8 51.50 4.98 14.60 12.31 0.45 –27.0 7
P3 4 20 0 44.88 8.47 17.37 8.56 0.40 –14.4 10
P4 4 20 8 54.17 5.57 18.07 9.19 0.40 –9.8 13
P5 4 24 0 46.13 8.30 17.98 6.42 0.37 –6.4 3
P6 4 24 8 56.07 5.08 18.55 7.97 0.37 –11.3 17
P7 6 16 0 43.07 8.95 13.67 12.66 0.43 –27.3 18
P8 6 16 8 53.03 5.50 14.75 12.10 0.45 –25.6 3
P9 6 20 0 43.03 9.05 16.25 8.20 0.38 –13.1 10
P10 6 20 8 49.72 6.93 17.23 10.46 0.38 –15.6 10
P11 6 24 0 44.58 9.05 18.53 8.53 0.39 –14.3 5
P12 6 24 8 53.03 6.80 20.65 7.38 0.36 –6.9 7
P13 8 16 0 40.70 9.83 13.78 13.39 0.46 –30.8 8
P14 8 16 8 41.55 10.15 14.72 13.47 0.48 –26.2 5
P15 8 20 0 44.95 8.50 15.77 10.11 0.40 –19.8 5
P16 8 20 8 46.98 8.12 16.98 10.25 0.41 –15.2 0
P17 8 24 0 43.82 9.18 16.93 11.97 0.39 –16.9 3
P18 8 24 8 46.62 8.63 18.35 11.07 0.41 –20.0 2
LSD 8.43 3.34 1.86 2.10 0.067 10.1 8
SI 35.9 8.0 11.0 13.63 0.539 –32.2 0
aL, a, and b represent Hunter L, a, and b values; MC, moisture content; a , water activity; TYMC, total yeast and mold count; T , glass transition temperature; SI, Stretch
w g
Island Fruit Leather, which was used as benchmark only. The LSD is not applicable to its means for all properties. LSD = t*(2MSE/N)1/2 = 1.993*(2*MSE/6)1/2.
E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties

They were then placed in a convection oven (OV35025 Thermolyne Table 2—TA.XT2i texture analyzer settings in TPA test
(Barnstead/Thermolyne, Dubuque, Iowa, U.S.A.) and dehydrated at Instrument TA.XT2i texture analyzer
70 °C for 8 h. The air velocity was about 0.4 m/s. Samples were peeled
Software XT.RA Dimension
from the plastic containers after cooling down at room temperature Mode TPA
(23 °C) and hermetically sealed in separate 150 ⫻ 150 mm polyeth- Force threshold 50.0 g
ylene bags (Bag Plastics Co. Inc., Twinburg, Ohio, U.S.A.) with a Model Distance threshold 0.50 mm
254B heating sealer (Clamco Corp., Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.). A com- Sample area 118.77 mm2
Contact force 150.0 g
mercial product, Organic Apple Fruit Leather (Stretch Island®, Allyn,
TPA test speed 0.5 mm/s
Wash., U.S.A.), purchased from the local market was used as a bench- Pretest speed 3.0 mm/s
mark for physical properties, and 2 commercial products (Stretch Is- Posttest speed 0.5 mm/s
land Fruit Leather and General Mills® Fruit Roll-Ups) were used as Trigger type Auto at 50 g
benchmarks for sensory analysis. Distance (strain) 30.0%
Time 5.00 s
Physical and micr obial analyses
microbial
Color measurement was conducted without packaging bags
using a HunterLab 45°/0° D25-PC2ƒ colorimeter (Hunter Associates The glass transition temperature (Tg) was measured using dy-
Laboratory, Inc., Reston, Va., U.S.A.). Texture profile analysis (TPA) namic differential scanning calorimetry (DDSC) with a Perkin-Elm-
was performed using a TA.XT2i® Texture Analyzer (Stable Micro er differential scanning calorimeter (DSC 7, Perkin Elmer Instru-
Systems Ltd., Godalming, Surrey, U.K.) programmed with the XT.RA ments LLC, Shelton, Conn., U.S.A.) equipped with Pyris DDSC
Dimension software. The samples were cut into uniform round accessory software (Perkin-Elmer Version 3.81). Five to 15 mg sam-
tablets of approximately 119 mm2 using a cylindrical cutter. A flat ples of each treatment were weighed using a Mettler AE240 digital
probe (d = 38.1 mm) was used to compress each sample twice and analytical balance with 0.01 mg sensitivity and then hermetically
5 TPA texture attributes (hardness, adhesiveness, cohesiveness, sealed in a Perkin-Elmer aluminum pan. The DDSC testing setting
springiness, and chewiness) were extracted from the TPA time-force is summarized in Table 3.
curve. The test settings of the texture analyzer are listed in Table 2. Total yeast and mold count (TYMC) was determined with AOAC
Moisture content (MC) values of all fruit leather samples were Official Method 997.02 (Cunniff 1995) using PetrifilmTM yeast and
determined using AOAC Official Method 925.09 (Cunniff 1995). A mold count plates (3M Microbiological, St. Paul, Minn., U.S.A.). The
Fisher Scientific® Isotemp 282A vacuum oven (Hanover Park, Ill., plates were stored in the original foil pouches in a refrigerator at 4 °C.
U.S.A.) was used for the dehydration at 70 °C with a pressure of Eleven grams of sample were blended with 99 mL Dilu-Lok® Butter-
approximately 25 mmHg for 12 h. Approximately 9 g fruit leather field’s phosphate buffer solution (Lot nr 2105A, Hardy® Diagnostics,
sample was weighed in a Mettler AE240 digital analytical balance Santa Maria, Calif., U.S.A.) in a Stomacher 400 closure bag (Seward Ltd.
(Mettler-Toledo Inc., Columbus, Ohio) with 0.01 mg sensitivity. London, U.K.) using a Stomacher® 400 lab blender (Seward Ltd.) for
The water activity (aw) was determined with a digital AquaLab 2 min to form a 1:10 solution, 1 mL of which was pipetted onto the
CX-2 water activity meter (Decagon Devices Inc., Pullman, Wash., center of the Petrifilm base. The inoculated plate was incubated at
U.S.A.) at 23 °C. The sample was cut into round pieces of approx- 23 °C for 3 d before the number of colonies was counted. The TYMC
imately 119 mm2 using the cylindrical cutter before being placed was calculated in units of CFU/g by multiplying the number of total
in the testing chamber. yeast and mold colonies/plate by the dilution factor of 10.

E178 JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 70, Nr. 3, 2005 URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org
Pear fruit leather properties . . .

Sensor
ensoryy analyses Table 3—DDSC test settings on Perkin-Elmer DSC 7
Descriptive analysis (DA), specifically, deviation from reference Instrument Perkin-Elmer DSC 7
descriptive analysis (Larson-Powers and Pangborn 1978), was con- Software Pyris 6
ducted to evaluate the intensities of the sensory characteristics of the Mode Iso/Scan
fruit leathers. Because most of the physical properties of pear fruit Calibration Indium
leather were not significantly affected by the corn syrup (Huang (m.p. 156.6 °C, ƒHm 28.5 J/g)
2003), only 9 treatments without the addition of corn syrup and 2 Heating rate 12 °C/min
between repetitions
commercial products (Stretch Island Fruit Leather and General Mills Isothermal hold time 20 s
Fruit Roll-Ups) underwent sensory analyses. A total of 11 fellow Temperature increment 4 °C
graduate students (7 females and 4 males), between the ages of 23 Repetitions 19
and 31 y, were recruited for this analysis. All panelists volunteered Initial temperature –50 °C
End temperature 26°C
to participate in the DA panel, and 9 of 11 had experience on DA and
Sample mass 5 to 15 mg
a variety of other sensory analyses, and had adequate familiarity with Sample pan Perkin-Elmer hermetic
the standard training and evaluation procedures prior to participat- aluminum pan
ing in this study. The screening criteria included good health (self Purge gas Purity > 99.9% helium flow
report), good dentition, nonsmoker, availability and ability to work of 20 mL/min
Coolant Liquid nitrogen
well in a panel, and interest in participating. All the training proce-
Replication 3
dures were adopted from the methods of Stone and others (1974)
and Stone and Sidel (1993). The panel was trained and calibrated in
4 sessions, each lasting 2 h, at the end of which the preliminary
ANOVA indicated that the panelists were consistent with the eval-
uations. Thirteen descriptive terms, which panelists believed were liking, adhesiveness liking, cohesiveness liking, springiness liking,
critical to describe the fruit leather, were generated by consensus. and chewiness liking. The definitions of all selected attributes were
These terms were shininess, brownness, fruit aroma, roughness, attached to the evaluation ballots so the judges had access to them
dryness, adhesiveness to lips, hardness, adhesiveness to teeth, co- whenever needed. To lessen the fatigue effect, 6 samples were

E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties

hesiveness, springiness, chewiness, sweetness, and tartness. Their
definitions and evaluation methods are listed in Table 4.
The evaluations were performed at 23 °C in the isolated booths
illuminated with three 50-W fluorescent lights. Crackers, carrots,
clean water, and spit cups were provided to the panelists; the def-
initions of the descriptive terms were also provided at all sessions.
Although the present project had been approved by the Univ. of
Missouri Review Board and the preventive microbiological testing
had been conducted prior to the sensory analysis, the panelists were
still required to expectorate all the samples after evaluation to elim-
inate any unnecessary safety risks. They were also required to re-
move the sample residuals in their mouths with the crackers and
carrots and clean their mouths with water between samples. All the
samples were cut into approximately 20 ⫻ 40 mm rectangles,
placed in lidded plastic cups, and then stored in a 4 °C refrigerator
until used but no longer than 12 h. Samples with 3-digit random
numbers were served to each of 11 panelists in a sequential
monadic fashion. The serving orders of samples were determined
with the Latin square experiment design. After tempering to 23 °C
for 30 min, 6 samples were initially served to the panelists; the
remaining 5 samples were served after the panelists took a man-
datory 5-min break. All attributes, except chewiness, were evalu-
ated using a 15-cm unstructured line scale; chewiness was mea-
sured as the times the sample was chewed before being ready for
swallowing. The evaluations were completed in 3 sessions, 1 rep-
lication for each.
Consumer hedonic testing was conducted employing 50 con-
sumer judges. Most of them were undergraduate student between
the ages of 18 and 24. The screening criteria were that participants
must be American, 18 y or older, a fruit leather consumer, and must
possess good dentition. All tests were performed using the same
procedures and conditions as were used in the DA section. Sam-
ples were served to the judges in an order determined by a com-
bination of 5 Latin square experiment designs. The judges rated the
samples in terms of the intensity of liking or disliking for the sam-
ples, expressed by checking a 9-point hedonic scale. Ten attributes
of interest evaluated in consumer testing were overall acceptance,
appearance liking, color liking, flavor liking, texture liking, hardness
served to the judges initially; the remaining 5 were served after the
judges took a mandatory 5-min break. The judges were asked to
freely write down their comments on the treatments at the end of
their evaluations. The evaluation was performed on a one-time
basis for each judge, and the entire test lasted 3 d. PCA was per-
formed to reflect the relationship between the samples and descrip-
tive terms, and external preference mapping was plotted.
Statistical analyses
The effect of pectin, corn syrup, and water on all physical param-
eters and sensory attributes was investigated based on the analy-
sis of variance (ANOVA) results of general linear model (GLM) pro-
cedure using SAS 2000 (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, N.C.). ANOVA was also
used to detect significant differences in consumer responses with
GLM procedure. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated
between all attributes from physical, microbial, and sensory tests.
Partial least squares regression (PLS) was performed on a data set
combining the sensory attributes (Y variable, response data sets)
and instrumental texture properties (X variable, predictive data sets)
using PROC PLS in SAS. Principal component analysis (PCA) was
used to study the correlation between the sensory attributes and
consumer test results using PROC FACTOR with the correlation
matrix in SAS.
Results and Discussion
Color change
The effect of water, pectin, corn syrup, and storage time on Hun-
terLab L, a, and b values of pear fruit leather is shown in Table 1. The
variation of L value is similar to the results of some previous studies
on fruits where the decrease in L value correlated well with increas-
es in the browning of foods (Irwandi and Che Man 1996; Lopez and
others 1997; Lozano and others 1994). Hunter L is a measure of the
color on the lightness (white/black) axis. Labuza and others (1970)
suggested that the variation in the brightness could be taken as a
measurement of browning. Water addition resulted in a slight de-
crease in L value, or a darker appearance. Water in the food system
not only serves as a solvent in which reactants are able to dissolve,

URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org Vol. 70, Nr. 3, 2005—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE E179
 Pear fruit leather properties . . .

Table 4—Definitions and evaluation methods of descriptive attributes in descriptive analysis

Terms Definition Evaluation approach
1 Shininess Reflection degree of the surface of the product Evaluate the surface with sense of sight
2 Brownness The brown color of the surface of the product Evaluate the brown color with sense of sight
3 Fruit aroma Fruit volatiles perceived by olfactory organ Evaluate the fruit odor with sense of smell
4 Roughness Amount of irregularities in the surface of the product Evaluate the surface with sense of sight
5 Dryness Absence of oil on the surface (oily to dry) Evaluate the surface with sense of sight
6 Hardness Force required to bite completely through sample Place sample between molar teeth and bite down evenly,
placed between molar evaluating the force required to compress the food
7 Adhesiveness to lips The sample is placed between the lips and Place sample between lips, press it against the lips,
compressed once slightly and released to assess and evaluate the force required to remove it with the lips
lip adhesiveness
8 Adhesiveness to teeth Amount of products adhering on/in the teeth after Place sample between teeth, chew it, and evaluate the
mastication of the product force required to remove it with the teeth
9 Cohesiveness Amount of deformation undergone by the material Place sample between molar teeth; compress and
before rupture when biting completely through evaluate the amount of deformation before rupture
sample with molars
10 Springiness Force with which the sample return to its original Place sample between molar and compress partially;
size/shape, after partial compression (without remove force and evaluate the degree and quickness
failure) molar teeth of recovery
11 Chewiness Number of chews (at 1 chew/s) needed to masticate Place sample in the mouth and masticate at 1 chew per
the sample to a consistency suitable for swallowing second at a force equal to that required to penetrate a gum
drop in 0.5 s, evaluating the number of chews required
to reduce the sample to a state ready for swallowing.
12 Sweetness The sweet degree of the product Place the sample in the mouth and chew; evaluate the
E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties

perception intensity of sweet

13 Tartness The tart degree of the product Place the sample in the mouth and chew it; evaluate the
perception intensity of tart

be transported, and react but also as a reactant that participates in
specific reactions directly (Labuza and others 1970). Nonenzymatic
browning intensified as the water content was increased. In con-
trast, corn syrup increased the lightness of the fruit leather as ex-
pected, primarily because it is transparent and its addition diluted
the color of the fruit leather. Moreover, the addition of corn syrup
enhanced the water effect on L values. Pectin contributed the least
to the change in L value.
All the fruit leather samples had the Hunter a scale on the pos-
itive side or appeared reddish, which could be attributed to the
initial color characteristics of the main ingredient—pear juice con-
centrate. Water influenced the a value most, which increased sig-
nificantly when increasing the water addition from 4% to 8% (w/w),
whereas the addition of corn syrup decreased the a value, especially
when the water level was low (Table 1). Changes in the a value were
similar to those in the L value and could be attributed to nonen-
zymatic browning reactions in the fruit leather system.
Because all b values were on the positive side of the Hunter b scale
(Table 1), the color of the fruit leather appeared to be yellowish. Water
addition did not result in a noticeable variation in the b value.
As a whole, color of the samples was determined primarily by the
original color of the pear juice concentrate, which appeared to be
reddish-brown. Most of the samples could hardly be differentiated
with the naked eye despite the instrumental results, which indicated
statistically significant differences (data not shown) among formulas.
Water content and water activity
Water content was affected by all the variables in the same man-
ner as water activity (Table 1): the higher the moisture content, the
higher the aw. Lodge (1981) reported similar results for kiwifruit
leather, as did Che Man and Taufik (1995) for jackfruit leather. As
expected, increasing initial water addition raised the pear fruit
leather’s moisture content but did not affect water activity signif-
icantly. This was probably because the initial difference in the water
content diminished after dehydration when making fruit leather.
Pectin was the only factor that had a significant effect on water
activity. It seemed that the added water was tightly bound with
pectin. Water addition (4 to 8% [w/w]) was low compared with the
added pectin (16 to 24% [w/w]) and could not affect the water ac-
tivity noticeably after drying.
All formulations in this research can be considered as either a
concentrated or low-moisture food system owing to the relative low
water contents ranging from 6.42% to 13.47%, and all the water
activity values lower than 0.50. Water can still act as a solvent at
such a low water content and water activity (Labuza and others
1970). Compared with commercial product, the moisture content
and aw were much lower (Table 4). Jackfruit leather developed by
Che Man and Taufik (1995) had 16.48% moisture content, while
papaya leather had 12% to 13% moisture (Chan and Cavaletto
1978). Although reduced moisture content can inhibit microbial
growth and prolong shelf-life, it may affect the texture quality
negatively. The same conclusion was drawn in a previous study on
durian fruit leather (Irwandi and others 1998a).
Glass tr ansition temper
transition atur
temperatur e ((T
ature T g)
T g is highly dependent on the moisture as a plasticizer in the
food matrix (Levine and Slade 1986). As expected, decreasing the
pectin content and raising the water addition lowered Tg (Table 1)
when more water became available as a plasticizer. Corn syrup ad-
dition did not change Tg noticeably; however, Tg increased while the
pectin increased and reached its peak at approximately –6.4 °C
when 24% (w/w) pectin and 4% (w/w) water were added. No sig-

E180 JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 70, Nr. 3, 2005 URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org
Pear fruit leather properties . . .
nificant difference in Tg was observed (P > 0.05) when water addi-
tion increased from 4% to 6% (w/w). This was probably because the
difference in the initial water addition diminished during dehydra-
tion. As a matter of fact, Tg was closely associated with the moisture
content obtained after the drying process instead of the water ad-
dition during ingredient blending. The commercial product had a
lower average Tg than all the prototypes due to its higher moisture
content ( Table 1).
Texture pr
exture ofile analysis ((TP
profile TPA)
TPA)
Pectin was found to be the most important factor that influenced
all of the 5 TPA properties. The higher the pectin content, the higher
the hardness, cohesiveness, springiness, and chewiness (Table 5).
High DE (degree of esterification > 50%) pectin forms gels at acidic
pH and in the presence of high concentration of sucrose (Pomer-
anz 1991). The high DE (85% in this research) pectin molecules
hydrogen-bonded with each other and formed cross-links that
enhanced the pear fruit leather’s ability to resist the deformation
caused by the texture analyzer’s probe and rendered the fruit leather
higher in hardness, springiness, cohesiveness, and chewiness.
The addition of corn syrup, a low viscosity fluid, when compared
with other ingredients in the fruit leather, softened the fruit leathers.
It also decreased springiness and increased the adhesiveness sig-
nificantly. Water increased the cohesiveness and decreased the
springiness. These observations were similar to the results of the
jackfruit leather by Che Man and Taufik (1995). In addition, the
sample with a higher water level appeared to be brighter, smoother,
and moister on the surface.
The benchmark product, Stretch Island (SI), had a mean hard-
ness value of 6130 ⫻ g (Table 5). Thus, the addition of pectin be-
tween 16% and 20% could result in a comparable product in terms
of hardness. Although most of the treatments were harder than the
benchmark, almost all had lower cohesiveness and springiness. For
chewiness, some treatments were higher than the benchmark (5030
g) while others were lower. The benchmark, SI, had slightly higher
moisture content (13.63% versus 6.42% to 13.47%) and water activity
(0.539 versus 0.36 to 0.48) values than the 18 treatments (Table 1).
This might explain their differences in the texture profile attributes.
To make the pear fruit leather taste softer and be more appealing
to consumers, with a texture profile closer to the benchmark, both
moisture content and water activity values should be raised.
The TX.TA2i texture analyzer was sensitive and reproducible for
all the TPA parameters except for adhesiveness. The variability in
surface condition of the sample and the inherent heterogeneity of
food made it difficult to obtain reproducible data for adhesiveness.
However, the general trends showing the effect of the independent
variables still can be discerned (Table 5).
Total yyeast
east and mold count
Very low TYMC values (<50 CFU/g) were found for most formu-
lations and no variables or interactions seemed to have an impact
on the results (Table 1). The average TMYC value was very close to
the results of microbiological analyses reported in previous studies
(Irwandi and Che Man 1996; Irwandi and others 1998a). Accord-
ing to Troller (1980), most of the microorganisms can barely survive
a water activity lower than 0.60. Dehydration at 70 °C for 8 h essen-
tially suppressed the microbial growth to an extremely low possi-
bility. All the samples in this research were found to have a water
activity lower than 0.50, which was definitely harsh for any micro-
organisms to grow.
Descr iptiv
escriptiv
iptivee sensor
sensoryy analysis
A close look into the mean values of descriptive attributes (not
URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org
shown here), the 9 prototypes can be divided into 3 groups, P1, P7,
and P13 in Group A; P3, P9, and P15 in Group B; and P5, P11, and
P17 in Group C. The products in the same group display similar
outlines (Figure 1 where only Group A is shown). The products in
Group A show most similar outlines to the benchmark SI compared
with any other prototypes. The 2 commercial products exhibited
different outlines indicating their differences in various attributes.
Consumer hedonic testing
The ANOVA result regarding overall acceptance is summarized
in Table 6 (the other 9 hedonic attributes are not shown). For all 10
attributes, General Mills (GM) and SI were ranked 1st and 2nd place,
respectively. Because GM significantly differed from all the other
products for all attributes, it was obviously the most favorite product
for the consumer judges. P1, P7, P13, and P9 followed GM and SI in
the order of overall acceptance. All were evaluated higher than 5,
which is the turning point where the liked and disliked products are
separated. No significant difference was observed between them;
however, P1 should be selected as the best formula according to its
highest hedonic score mean (5.34) in all 9 prototypes and as the base
for further improvement of sensory quality.
PCA and exter nal pr
external efer
preference mapping
eference
A PCA was performed to incorporate the DA and consumer data.
Totally, 97.5% of the variance can be explained by the 1st 3 principal
E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties
components in this model (PCI: 59.6%, PCII: 27.3%, and PCIII:
10.6%).
In the external preference mapping graph (Figure 2) where only
the 1st 2 PCs were indicated, the relationship between the prod-
ucts and attributes is revealed. PCI (x-axis) represents such at-
tributes as springiness, sweetness, adhesiveness to teeth, hardness,
dryness, roughness, and shininess; PCII (y-axis) represents adhe-
siveness to lips, chewiness, cohesiveness, fruit aroma, tartness, and
brownness. Dryness, roughness, and hardness form an angle of
180° with springiness, adhesiveness to lips, and shininess, which
means these 2 groups of attributes were negatively correlated. Nine
prototypes formed 3 groups in a similar fashion in DA and consum-
er hedonic testing sections. It shows that P1, P7, and P13 are closely
correlated with SI because they point to the same direction, but
their evaluation intensities were lower than those of SI in the di-
rections of adhesiveness to lips, springiness, and brownness. The
positions of P3, P9, and P15 in the coordinate are close to the or-
igin, which probably explained why they were ranked low in con-
sumer preference: they featured no particularly desirable attributes.
P5, P11, and P17 are correlated with dryness, roughness, and hard-
ness that are deemed undesirable attributes. It should not be un-
expected for them to be rated extremely low for most of the at-
tributes in consumer testing.
GM can be regarded as a much more successful commercial
product than SI. This is because most of the consumers fell into the
1st quadrant (upper right corner) of the coordinate (Figure 3) where
GM was located. It appears that shiny surface, sweet and tart tastes,
and fruit aroma are important sensory characteristics of fruit leath-
er, which can provoke the consumers’ purchasing desire. No con-
siderable preference difference is observed between either sex or
age groups.
Correlation betw
orrelation een instr
between umental
instrumental
and sensor y measur
sensory ements
measurements
Instrumental measurement was initially invented to replace the
sensory measurement. If significant correlation can be found be-
tween the instrumental and sensory measurements for certain
sensory attributes, plenty of cost, time, and labor will be saved.
Vol. 70, Nr. 3, 2005—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE E181
 Pear fruit leather properties . . .

Table 5—Effect of ingredient amounts on instrumental texture parameters (n = 10)a

Formulationb
Water Pectin Corn syrup Hardness Adhesiveness Springiness Chewiness
Product (% w/w) (% w/w) (% w/w) (g) (g mm) Cohesiveness (mm) (g mm)
P1 4 16 0 5870 88.7 0.776 0.825 3760
P2 4 16 8 4420 104 0.739 0.781 2560
P3 4 20 0 10300 41.5 0.823 0.885 7510
P4 4 20 8 7070 118 0.760 0.823 4410
P5 4 24 0 12300 50.4 0.858 0.903 9510
P6 4 24 8 10000 124 0.796 0.833 6690
P7 6 16 0 6190 89.3 0.798 0.857 4240
P8 6 16 8 4630 143 0.782 0.809 3930
P9 6 20 0 10000 46.2 0.848 0.900 7680
P10 6 20 8 8500 108 0.796 0.855 5820
P11 6 24 0 13200 42.9 0.879 0.908 10500
P12 6 24 8 11000 146 0.820 0.856 7740
P13 8 16 0 6130 105 0.810 0.850 4220
P14 8 16 8 5500 122 0.780 0.854 3660
P15 8 20 0 10300 104 0.838 0.892 7730
P16 8 20 8 7750 177 0.807 0.869 5420
P17 8 24 0 10400 111 0.864 0.910 8190
P18 8 24 8 8410 157 0.836 0.892 6270
LSD 3010 131 0.030 0.047 2420
SI 6130 79.0 0.866 0.948 5030
aSI stands for Stretch Island Fruit Leather, which was used as benchmark only, and the LSD is not applicable to its means for all properties. LSD = t*(2MSE/N)1/2 =
1.993*(2*MSE/10)1/2
bBased on 100% pear juice concentrate.
E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties

When searching for the correlations, a problem may arise when 2 existence of a significant correlation. For example, a significant
attributes without any intrinsic relationship appear statistically correlation coefficient (–0.82, P < 0.01) between TYMC and TPA
significantly correlated. Szczesniak (1968) cautioned sensory spe- springiness does not make sense and, therefore, implies nothing
cialists and food engineers against blindly correlating sensory and but a coincidence.
instrumental attributes.
Pearson correlation coefficients between instrumental and sen- Compar ison betw
omparison een instr
between umental pr
instrumental oper
proper ties
operties
sory attributes were calculated using the PROC CORR procedure and their sensor
sensoryy counterpar ts
counterparts
in SAS. Most of them do not interrelate to each other significant- There are significant correlations, specifically 0.82 (P < 0.01), 0.83
ly owing to lack of the intrinsic link (data not shown). Furthermore, (P < 0.01), and 0.85 (P < 0.01), between instrumental and trained
a significant correlation coefficient does not necessarily mean the panel sensory hardness, cohesiveness, and chewiness, respectively.

Figure 1—Descriptive sensory

Shininess
attributes evaluations of 3 pear fruit
14 leather samples and 2 commercial
Tartness Brownness products (SI, Stretch Island Fruit
12 Leather; GM, General Mills Fruit
Roll-Ups) from center point.
10
Sweetness 8 Fruit Aro

Chewiness 2 Rou
0

Springiness Dryn

Cohesiveness Adhesiveness

Adhesiveness to Teeth Hardness

E182 JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 70, Nr. 3, 2005 URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org
Pear fruit leather properties . . .

Table 6—Hedonic evaluations of 11 samples for overall ac- to predict their corresponding sensory attributes, because they
ceptance (n = 50)a were very close to each other on the PLS map. This map also reveals
Fruit leather HunterLab b values are on the opposite side of brownness.
samples Mean Significance grouping Adhesiveness to lips and adhesiveness to teeth are different con-
GM 7.74 a cepts and are tested using different measuring/evaluation methods.
SI 6.02 b The texture analyzer compressed the samples with the probe,
P1 5.34 c imitating the chewing action while not cutting through the sample.
P7 5.30 c
Therefore, the instrumental adhesiveness should be closely asso-
P13 5.24 c
P9 5.10 c d ciated with sensory adhesiveness to lips rather than adhesiveness
P15 4.96 c d e to teeth. However, no significant correlation is observed between
P3 4.56 d e instrumental TPA adhesiveness and sensory adhesiveness as ex-
P11 4.50 e pected (P > 0.05). It is probably because the sensory perception is
P17 3.60 f
P5 3.38 f influenced by some other factors, such as the moisture on the lips
LSD 0.548 and the compressive force applied between the lips. Obviously,
a LSD = t*(2*MSE/N)1/2 = 1.965*(2*MSE/50)1/2. The means with the same letter are when a panelist pressed the sample with his/her lips, it could not
not significantly different (P < 0.05). SI stands for Stretch Island Fruit Leather; GM be compressed as hard as in instrumental measurement (30%
stands for General Mills Fruit Roll-Ups
strain).
According to Szczesniak (1998), hardness has consistently cor-
related very well in most previous research. Springiness and cohe-
In addition, sensory brownness is negatively correlated with Hun- siveness give low degrees of correlation owing to difficulties in
terLab b values (–0.86, P < 0.01), but not significantly correlated quantifying those parameters in sensory profiling or the need for
with HunterLab L and a values (P > 0.01). When the mean values improved methods of quantifying them in instrumental profiling.
of instrumental properties (predictive data sets, X variable) and It is probably because the instrumental parameters do not measure
data from sensory descriptive panel (response data sets, Y variable) the same parameters that are described by the sensory attributes
were combined and submitted to the PLS algorithm, the resulting (Lyon and others 2000). The difference between the masticatory

E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties

1st 2 PLS dimensions accounted for 79.0% of the X variation and movement of human beings and the imitation of the texture ana-
80.7% of the Y variation (Figure 4). This PLS map confirms that in- lyzer is probably the same reason, which caused the nonsignificant
strumental hardness, chewiness, and cohesiveness could be used correlation between instrumental and sensory springiness.

3
PC II (26.0%)

2.5

1.5

P5 Cohesiveness Chewiness
0.5 P17 Tartn
P11
Dryness
Hardness
0
P9 P15
Roughness
-0.5
P3
P
-1 Brownness

-1.5
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0

Figure 2—Factor loading for sensory attributes and consumer testing of pear fruit leather samples on Principal Component
Analysis map (diamonds represent sensory descriptors and triangles represent the 9 pear fruit leathers and 2 commercial
products, SI: Stretch Island Fruit Leather; GM: General Mills Fruit Roll-ups). When consumer preference (Overall liking) data
is excluded, the variances accounted for by PC I and PC II become 59.6% and 27.3%, respectively.

URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org Vol. 70, Nr. 3, 2005—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE E183
 Pear fruit leather properties . . .

The rrole
ole of T g in instr umental and sensor
instrumental sensoryy texture
texture
Using Tg as an alternative, food scientists have attempted to re-
place the physical properties, such as water activity and water con-
tent, for prediction of the rheological, microbiological, and even
sensory characteristics of the low-moisture, intermediate-moisture,
and frozen food products (Slade and Levine 1987; Slade and Levine
1991). These expectations were opposed by some researchers (Chir-
ife and Buera 1996), however. They concluded that the desire to re-
place water activity with T g was not supported by experimental
evidence. No significant correlation existed between Tg and TYMC
in this study (P > 0.05). Other factors such as temperature and pack-
aging, not just water activity, must be taken into account when
evaluating the microbial growth.
Significant correlations were observed between Tg and the instru-
mental hardness (0.93, P < 0.001) and chewiness (0.90, P < 0.01).
Hardness is strongly correlated with Tg possibly because, at the
surrounding temperature (25 to approximately 30 °C) above Tg, the
sample softened and became rubbery. Chewiness is the product of
hardness, cohesiveness, and springiness, which incorporates these
3 important textural characteristics. Its strong association with
hardness, and thus with Tg, can be easily interpreted. As for the
descriptive sensory analysis, it is interesting to note that Tg also
showed significant correlations with hardness (0.78, P < 0.05) and
chewiness (0.70, P < 0.05). Additional significant correlations were
roughness (0.97, P < 0.001), adhesiveness to lips (–0.91, P < 0.001),
E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties
ness to lips, adhesiveness to teeth, and springiness are on the op-
posite side of Tg (Figure 4).
Correlation betw
orrelation een the attr
between ibutes
attributes
of DA and consumer testing
Overall acceptance from the consumer panelists indicates sig-
nificant correlations with almost all DA descriptive attributes (data
not shown). However, DA and consumer sensory texture attributes
were highly negatively correlated: hardness (–0.94, P < 0.001), co-
hesiveness (–0.91, P < 0.01), and chewiness (–0.95, P < 0.001), ex-
cept springiness (0.86, P < 0.01). This was not totally unexpected
because the consumer test was based on the liking/disliking inten-
sity whereas the descriptive test was an objective evaluation.
Overall liking from the consumer hedonic testing was correlated
positively with adhesiveness to teeth, fruit aroma, shininess, sweet-
ness, and tartness, but negatively with dryness, hardness, rough-
ness, cohesiveness, and chewiness. When the mean values of the
descriptive sensory attributes and data from consumer test were
submitted to the PCA, the resulting first two principal components
accounted for 87.5% of the total variance, with 61.5% explained by
the first one (Figure 2). This PCA map confirms these correlations.
As shown, overall liking almost overlapped with sweetness and was
very close to shininess, fruit aroma, adhesiveness to teeth, and tart-
ness. On the other hand, dryness, hardness, roughness, and cohe-
siveness were on the opposite side of overall liking. Figure 2 also

adhesiveness to teeth (–0.74, P < 0.05), cohesiveness (0.71, P < 0.05),
and springiness (–0.69, P < 0.05). All these correlations could also
be observed on the PLS map which shows instrumental hardness,
chewiness, cohesiveness, and sensory hardness, chewiness, cohe-
siveness, and roughness are close to Tg, whereas sensory adhesive-
shows the commercial product (GM) had the highest consumer
acceptance while the low acceptance of P5, P17, and P11 (Table 6)
was mainly due to their dryness and hardness. In addition, the
consumer acceptance of P1, P7, and P13 could be increased by rais-
ing their fruit aroma, sweetness, tartness, and shininess.

2
PC2 (27.3%)

1.5

1 Adhesivenes
Chewiness to Teeth
Cohesiveness
0.5 Fru
Tartness
Shininess
Dryness
0 Hardness

Roughness
-0.5

-1 Brownness

-1.5
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5

Figure 3—Consumer preference mapping of pear fruit leather samples (squares and triangles represent female and male
consumers, respectively; diamonds represent sensory descriptors).

E184 JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 70, Nr. 3, 2005 URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org
Pear fruit leather properties . . .

Conclusions Brady PL. 1989. Making fruit leather, candied fruit, and jerkies at home. Publication
Number FSHED57-5M-5-89R. Little Rock, Ark: Univ. of Arkansas Cooperative Ex-

P ectin was the most important ingredient that significantly af-

fected all 5 textural properties of the fruit leather. Its addition
can be reduced to obtain a softer and more appealing fruit leather.
The color of the fruit leather was essentially determined by the pear
juice concentrate and did not noticeably change after the storage.
Microbial growth was effectively suppressed due to the relatively low
moisture content, water activity, and packaging.
Glass transition temperature (Tg) was not useful for predicting
microbiological attributes of pear fruit leather but had strong cor-
relations with instrumental hardness and chewiness, as well as
sensory attributes. Hardness, cohesiveness, and chewiness from
instrumental measurements could be used to predict their corre-
sponding descriptive sensory attributes. Overall acceptance from
consumer hedonic testing was correlated positively with adhesive-
ness to teeth, fruit aroma, shininess, sweetness, and tartness, but
negatively with dryness, hardness, roughness, cohesiveness, and
chewiness from descriptive sensory analysis.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Mr. Bo-Kang Liou for the assistance
of data analysis using SAS.
References
Ayotte E. 1980. Fruit leather. Publication number P-228. Fairbanks, Alaska: Univ. of
Alaska Cooperative Extension Service. 2 p.
tension Service. 4 p.
Chan Jr HT, Cavaletto CG. 1978. Dehydration and storage stability of papaya leath-
er. J Food Sci 43:1723–5.
Chauhan SK, Joshi VK, Lal BB. 1993. Apricot-soy fruit bars: A new protein-enriched
product. J Food Sci Technol 30:457–8.
Che Man YB, Sin KK. 1997. Processing and consumer acceptance of fruit leather from
the unfertilized floral parts of jackfruit. J Sci Food Agric 75:102–8.
Che Man YB, Taufik. 1995. Development and stability of jack fruit leather. Tropic Sci
35:245–50.
Che Man YB, Irwandi J, Yusof S, Jinap S, Sugisawa H. 1997. Effect of different dryers
and drying conditions on acceptability and physicochemical characteristics of
durian leather. J Food Proc Preserv 21:425–41.
Chen XD, Pirini W, Ozilgen M. 2001. The reaction engineering approach to model-
ing drying of thin layer of pulped kiwifruit flesh under conditions of small Biot
numbers. Chem Eng Proc 40:311–20.
Chirife J, Buera MP. 1996. Water activity, water glass dynamics and the control of
microbiological growth in foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 36:465–513.
Cunniff P. 1995. Official methods of AOAC Intl. 16th ed. Gaithersburg: AOAC Intl.
Huang X. 2003. Instrumental and sensory properties of pear fruit leather [MS the-
sis]. Colombia, Mo.: Univ. of Missouri-Columbia. 172 p. Available through Univ. of
Missouri Ellis Library.
Irwandi J, Che Man YB. 1996. Durian leather: development, properties and storage
stability. J Food Qual 19:479–89.
Irwandi J, Che Man YB, Yusof S, Jinap S, Sugisawa H. 1998a. Effects of type of pack-
aging materials on physicochemical, microbiological and sensory characteristics
of durian fruit leather during storage. J Sci Food Agric 76:427–34.
Irwandi J, Che Man YB, Yusof S, Jinap S, Sugisawa H. 1998b. Effect of glucose syrup
solid, sucrose, hydrogenated palm oil and soy-lecithin on sensory acceptability
of durian leather. J Food Proc Preserv 22:13–25.
Labuza TP, Tannenbaum SR, Karel M. 1970. Water content and stability of low-mois-
ture and intermediate-moisture foods. Food Technol 24(5):35–42.
Larson-Powers NM, Pangborn RM. 1978. Descriptive analysis of the sensory prop-
erties of beverages and gelatin containing sucrose and synthetic sweeteners. J
Food Sci 48(11):47–51.
Levine H, Slade L. 1986. A. Polymer physico-chemical approach to the study of com-

E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties

Babalola SO, Ashaye OA, Babalola AO, Aina JO. 2002. Effect of cold temperature stor- mercial starch hydrolysis products (SHPS). Carbohydr Polym 6:213–44.
age on the quality attributes of pawpaw and guava leathers. Afr J Biotechnol Lodge N. 1981. Kiwifruit: two novel processed products. Food Technol [New Zealand]
1(2):61–3. 7:35–43.

0.6 Springiness

Cohesiveness

0.4

Hardness
0.2
Chewiness Hardness
Chewiness
Dryness
Cohesiveness
0
Dimension II (23.2% X, 19.9% Y)

Tg
a
Roughness
-0.2 b

-0.4
L

Tart
-0.6
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1

Figure 4—The loading plot from Partial Least Squares model using instrumental properties (triangles) as predictive data
sets (X variable) and sensory attributes (diamonds) as response data sets (Y variable).

URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org Vol. 70, Nr. 3, 2005—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE E185
 Pear fruit leather properties . . .
Lopez A, Pique MT, Boatella J, Romero A, Ferran A, Garcia J. 1997. Influence of dry-
ing conditions on the hazelnut quality: III. Browning. Drying Technol 15:989–1002.
Lozano JE, Drudis R, Ibarz-Ribas A. 1994. Enzymatic browning in apple pulps. J Food
Eng 59:564–7.
Lyon BG, Champagne ET, Vinyard BT, Windham WR. 2000. Sensory and instrumen-
tal relationships of texture of cooked rice from selected cultivars and postharvest
handling practices. Cereal Chem 77:64–9.
MacKenzie RA, Strachan G. 1981. Possibilities for processing papayas in New
Zealand. Food Technol [New Zealand]. 16(8):13, 19.
Maskan A, Kaya S, Maskan M. 2002. Hot air and sun drying of grape leather. J Food
Eng 54:81–8.
Moyls AL. 1987. A case study on modification and operation of two commercial fruit-
leather dryers. Can Agr Eng 28(1):61–70.
Pomeranz Y. 1991. Functional properties of food components. 2nd ed. San Diego:
Academic Press. 569 p.
Putnam J. 2000. A century of change in America’s eating patterns: Major trends in
U.S. food supply, 1909–99. Food Rev 23:8–15.
Raab C, Oehler N. 1976. Making dried fruit leather. Fact Sheet 232. Corvallis, Oreg.:
Oregon State Univ. Extension Service. 2 p.
Slade L, Levine H. 1987. Structural stability of intermediate moisture foods—a new
E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties
E186 JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 70, Nr. 3, 2005
understanding. In: Mitchell JR, Blanshard JMV, editors. Food structure—its cre-
ation and evaluation. London: Butterworth. p 115–47.
Slade L, Levine H. 1991. Beyond water activity: recent advances on an alternative
approach to the assessment of food quality and safety. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr
30:115–360.
Stone H, Sidel J, Oliver S, Woolsey A, Singleton RC. 1974. Sensory evaluation by quan-
titative, descriptive analysis. Food Technol 28(11):24–34.
Stone H, Sidel JL. 1993. Sensory evaluation practices. 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic
Press. 338 p.
Szczesniak AS. 1968. Correlations between objective and sensory texture measure-
ments. Food Technol 22(8):49–54.
Szczesniak AS. 1998. Sensory texture profiling—historical and scientific perspec-
tives. Food Technol 52(8):54–57.
Torrey M. 1974. Dehydration of fruits and vegetables. Park Ridge, N.J.: Noyes Data
Corp. 287 p.
Troller JA. 1980. Influence of water activity on microorganisms in foods. Food Tech-
nol 34(5):76–80, 82.
Vijayanand P, Yadav AR, Balasubramanyam N, Narasimham P. 2000. Storage stability
of guava fruit bar prepared using a new process. Lebensm Wiss Technol 33:132–7.
URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org