Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Physicochemical, nutritional, agronomic and sensorial parameters, which define fruit quality of tomato
(Solanum lycopersicum), were evaluated in 13 traditional varieties collected from several localities in
Tunisia, using three commercial varieties as controls. Several varieties were identified as better score
for total solid, soluble solid, sugars/acid ratio and vitamin C concentration than the commercial
varieties. These varieties could be a resource of good quality in breeding programmes. The correlation
between specific parameter seen in this study showed that the local varieties can be differentiated, not
just as a function of their morphological attributes but also as a function of their organoleptic,
nutritional and sensorial quality.
Key words: Tomato, quality, selection, breeding programme.
INTRODUCTION
Major fruit quality of interest to both fresh market and
industrial tomato include a number of agronomic,
organoleptic and nutritional qualities. Organoleptic quality
is evidenced via physicochemical parameters that make
product to be acceptance to consumers (Stevens, 1972;
Kader et al., 1977). Total fruit solids content is particularly
important to the processing industry and has probably
received more attention than any other fruit trait. Total
solids content of cultivated tomato amount to 4.5 to 8.5%
of its fresh weight (Andr et al., 2005), though this
percentage can be much higher in some wild species
(Bertin et al., 2000).
Total solids comprise all fruit components such as
aromas except water and volatiles. In cultivated tomato,
the soluble (SS) and insoluble solids (ISS) account for
about 75 and 25%, respectively, of total solids (Majid,
2007). Reducing sugars (glucose and fructose) are the
major components of the SS; sucrose is also present but
in very small quantities (Malundo et al., 1995). Remaining
soluble solids consist of organic acids, lipids, minerals
and pigments. ISS include proteins, cellulose, hemicellulose, pectins and polysaccharides, which determine fruit
*Corresponding author Email: aoun.amira@yahoo.fr
Aoun et al.
351
Statistical evaluation
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS program (version
15). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncans multiple range
test (P<0.05) was used to establish possible significant variation
among varieties of instrumental parameter (agronomic, organoleptic
and nutritional parameters) analyzed. To assess key relationships
which exist among characteristics involved in tomato fruit
organoleptic quality, principal agronomic, nutritional and sensory
parameters, Pearsons correlations between all traits pairs were
calculated and the significance of their associations was tested with
t-test at a significance level of 0.05 and 0.01.
352
Table 1. Mean value of agronomic, physicochemical and nutritional parameters evaluated in tomato fruits of traditional varieties (IRA) and
controls.
Variety
Marmande VF
IRA 61
IRA 622
IRA 103
IRA 17
IRA 9
IRA 162
Rio Grande
IRA 22
IRA 23 A
IRA 23 B
IRA 5
IRA 21
IRA 2
Ventura
IRA 3
TS
bc
7.86
ab
7.11
7.11ab
b
7.30
10.32d
7.19ab
c
8.82
ab
6.82
ab
6.70
bc
7.58
7.57bc
a
5.88
ab
7.02
7.83bc
6.74ab
7.12ab
TSS
cd
4.5
abcd
3.3
3.67abcd
ab
2.35
abcd
2.67
4.22bcd
abcd
3.95
a
2.02
abcd
3.85
abc
2.40
4.57d
abcd
3.02
3.17abcd
2.5abcd
2.65abcd
2.47abcd
pH
c
4.45
abc
4.31
4.49c
bc
4.39
4.46c
4.41c
abc
4.35
c
4.41
abc
4.36
c
4.41
4.19a
abc
4.37
4.38abc
4.3abc
4.38abc
4.21ab
TA (g/l citric
acid)
7.9c
ab
3.97
4.27ab
a
2.52
ab
3.25
9.05c
b
5.72
ab
3.12
ab
3.15
ab
4.85
5.12ab
ab
3.45
3.47ab
4.57ab
2.9a
3.6ab
K+
b
2.72
ab
2.1
1.86ab
a
1.81
ab
2.19
2.43ab
ab
1.9
b
2.72
ab
2.14
ab
2.19
2.38ab
ab
2
2.1ab
2.19ab
2.29ab
2ab
Vitamin C
(mg/100 g)
8.05abc
cd
10.89
abc
9.39
bc
9.45
10.55bcd
10.91cd
bcd
10.53
a
6.01
bcd
10.16
abc
8.57
10.56bcd
abc
9.15
8.80abc
9.59bcd
7.30ab
12.94d
Weight (g)
c
150.25
abc
108.25
116.25bc
a
15.5
25.25ab
324.25d
c
126.25
abc
97.25
abc
87
c
145.75
150.25c
c
125
122c
120c
80.25abc
90.5abc
Diameter
TSS/TA
0.56ab
abc
0.85
0.88bc
bc
0.91
abc
0.83
0.47a
ab
0.69
ab
0.65
c
1.13
a
0.45
bc
0.95
bc
0.89
0.92bc
0.58ab
0.92bc
0.73abc
90.96
cdef
57.69
64.37def
a
27.02
ab
30.99
91.03g
g
92.57
abc
42.41
abcd
46.02
ef
68.97
77.52fg
def
65.18
bcde
50.21
63.51def
41.16abc
60.44cdef
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed, alpha = 0.05, harmonic mean sample size used = 4,000.
Aoun et al.
353
Table 2. Spearman's correlation coefficients and level of significance among instrumental traits analysed in fruits
of traditional varieties.
TA
TSS
TS
TSS/TA
K+
Vit C
pH
Weight
Diameter
TA
1.000
0.602**
0.088
-0.342*
0.190
0.088
-0.133
0.689**
0.662**
TSS
TS
TSS/TA
K+
Vit C
pH
Weight
Diameter
1.000
0.020
0.452**
0.205
0.027
-0.129
0.358**
0.387**
1.000
0.017
-0.020
0.201
0.126
-0.107
-0.56
1.000
0.074
-0.054
0.012
-0.277*
-0.311*
1.000
0.130
-0.021
0.142
0.207
1.000
-0.030
0.041
0.188
1.000
0.016
-0.94
1.000
0.698**
1.000
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table 3. Spearman's correlation coefficients and level of significance among sensorial traits analysed in traditional
varieties fruits.
Firm texture
juiciness
Red colour
intensity
Aroma intensity
taste
elasticity
Red colour
intensity
Firm texture
Juiciness
1.000
0.040
1.000
-0.028
0.619**
1.000
0.008
-0.028
0.162
0.491**
0.748**
-0.486**
0.626**
0.834**
-0.508**
Aroma
intensity
1.000
0.904**
-0.853**
Taste
Elasticity
1.000
-0.795**
1.000
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level, *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 4. Spearman's correlation coefficients and level of significance between instrumental and
sensorial traits analysed in fruits of traditional varieties of tomato.
TA
TSS
TS
TSS/TA
K
Vit C
pH
weight
diameter
Firm texture
Juiciness
0.311*
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
0.426**
0.366**
0.385**
ns
ns
-0.417**
ns
ns
-0.280*
0.349*
0.492**
Red colour
intensity
Ns
Ns
Ns
Ns
Ns
Ns
-0.308*
Ns
Ns
Aroma
intensity
ns
ns
0.553**
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
Taste
Elasticity
ns
ns
0.357**
-0.318*
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
-0.425**
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed), ns
= correlation not significant.
354