Proc. Interamer. Soc. Trop. Hort. 47:137-140.
Fruit/Frutales - October 2003
Avaliacąo Pedunculos de Quatro Genótipos de Caju
Deborah dos Santos Garruti, Embrapa Agroindústria Tropical, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil, 60511-110 [email protected]
Tânia da Silveira Agostini Costa, Embrapa Recursos Genéticos, Brasília-DF, Brazil
Viviane Azevedo Padilha, Marcelo Victor Lima, Katiane Arrais Jales, Univ. Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil
Abstract. Cashew apples from four of Embrapa’s commercial
genotypes (CCP09, CCP76, CCP1001, BRS189) plus the species
microcarpum were sensory and chemically evaluated. Samples
were discriminated by aroma intensity and sweetness, cashew
flavor, softness, juiciness, astringency, throat irritation, tannin
content, anacardic acid content, soluble solids, sugars and pH.
Astringency and throat irritation correlated positively to tannin
content, acid taste and to each other. Cashew apples from CCP76
showed high intensity of sweet aroma, sweetness, softness, and
juiciness. CCP09 apples were characterized by poor sweet taste,
low intensity of cashew flavor and low juiciness. Microcarpum
cashew apples were very sweet but poor in aroma and juiciness.
Resumo. Pedúnculos de quatro genótipos comerciais de caju
(CCP09, CCP76, CCP1001, BRS189) e da espécie microcarpum
foram avaliados química e sensorialmente. As amostras foram
discriminadas por: pungência do aroma, aroma doce, sabor de caju,
gosto doce, gosto ácido, maciez, suculência, adstringência, irritação
na garganta, teor de tanino, teor de ácido anacárdico, sólidos
solúveis, açúcar e pH. Adstringência e irritação na garganta
correlacionaram positivamente com o teor de taninos, gosto ácido e
entre si. Pedúnculos do clone CCP76 apresentaram maior intensidade
de aroma doce, maciez e suculência. CCP09 caracterizou-se por
pedúnculos de gosto doce e sabor de caju fracos e pouca suculência.
Pedúnculos de microcarpum apresentaram-se muito doces mas
pobres em aroma e suculência.
____________________________
The cultivation of clones of dwarf cashew, together with recent advances in post-harvest and irrigation technologies have
contributed to increase the commercialization fresh cashew apples. This creates new demands for the breeding research in
Brazil, mainly about the eating quality of cashew apples. The main focus has been to reduce astringency (Crisostomo et al.,
2002). Recent works bring much information about physical and chemical properties of peduncles with potential for fresh
consumption (Pinto et al., 1997; Moura et al., 1998), but no sensory evaluation has been applied to these materials. Garruti et al.
(1999) studied the sensory attributes of cashew apple juice from four commercial genotypes, but did not develop descriptors for
the fresh fruit. The present work aimed to make a descriptive analysis of cashew peduncles and verify whether these sensory
attributes correlate with each other and/or to its chemical properties. Besides usual physico-chemical parameters, the phenolic
lipid content (anacardic acids) was also determined, because of its vesicant properties.
Materials and Methods
sweet aroma
sweet taste
cashew aroma
softness
pungency
CP II (83.8%)
Peduncles were harvested from clones of
early dwarf cashew trees CCP09, CCP76,
CCP1001,
BRS189
and
from
the
microcarpum species, at EMBRAPA’s
experimental farms located in Pacajus and
Paraipaba, Ceara State, Brazil. The
microcarpum species grows only in Pacajus.
Separation from the nuts was done at the
laboratory in Fortaleza, Ceara.
Sensory analysis. The sensory profile of
cashew samples was determined by using
Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (Stone et
al., 1974). The panel consisted of 13 judges,
selected by their sensitivity using triangular
tests and Wald’s Sequential Analysis. In
initial training sessions the judges generated
descriptive terms using the Grid methodology
(Moskowitz, 1983). Additionally they
selected 10 terms and set definitions and
standards for each one.
acid taste
astringency
CCP 09 Pacj
CCP 09 Prpb
CCP 76 Pacj
CCP 76 Prpb
BRS 189 Pacj
BRS 189 Prpb
CCP 1001 Pacj
CCP 1001 Prpb
MICROC Pacj
CP I( 54.0%)
Figure 1. Projection of cashew apples sensory data on principal components I
and II.
138
Results and Discussion
acidity
soluble solids
pH
CP II (66,88%)
To test the panel on the developed
descriptors, three samples of peduncles
were rated in triplicate. Assessors
showed high discriminative power, good
reproducibility and consensus in their
judgements. A complete block design
was used to evaluate 9 samples in
triplicate. Slices of peduncle, taken from
the middle of the fruit, were served in
coded disposable dishes in random
order, according to availability of
material at the orchards. Intensity ratings
were scored on a 9-cm unstructured
scale, anchored with terms “weak” or
“not perceived” at the low end
(depending on the term) and “strong” at
the high end. All evaluations were
performed at 22oC under white light in
separate booths.
Chemical analysis. Cashew apples
were analyzed for pH, soluble solids,
titratable acidity, condensed tannins by
the vanilin method and anacardic acids
according to Agostini-Costa et al.
(2003).
Data analysis. All statistical
analysis were performed using SAS.
ANOVA was applied to each attribute
to investigate the significance of judges,
clones and the judges x clone
interaction.
Principal
component
analyses (PCA) with no rotation were
performed using the mean values for all
materials, for both the chemical and
sensory data sets. These two data sets
were also submitted to Pearson
Correlation analysis.
anacardic acids
CCP 09 Pacj
tannins
CCP 09 Prpb
CCP 76 Pacj
CCP 76 Prpb
BRS 189 Pacj
BRS 189 Prpb
CCP 1001 Pacj
CCP 1001 Prpb
MICROC Pacj
CP I ( 37,10%)
Figure 2. Projection of cashew apples chemical data on principal
components I and II.
Table 1. Descriptive terms generated for cashew apples by the sensory panel, with
definitions and reference samples.
Descriptor
Definituin
Reference samples
Pungency
Impact of the volatile compounds on the nose, causing irritation
Weak: 10% ethanol solution + 2 drops of pineapple essence (Duas Rodas)
Strong: 10% ethanol solution + 4 drops of pineapple essence (Duas Rodas)
Sweet aroma
Sweet aroma characteristic of ripe cashew apples
Weak: 1 drop of apple essence (Duas Rodas) in 100 mL water
Strong: 4 drops of apple essence (Duas Rodas) in 100 mL water
The
descriptors
selected
by
Cashew aroma
consensus are listed in Table 1 with the
Characteristic of fresh ripe cashew apples
definition on each term and the
Weak: fresh cashew apple juice in water 1+2
composition of the reference standards.
Strong: whole apple juice
As summarized in Table 2, the analysis
Sweet taste
of individual attributes did not show
Characteristic of a sucrose solution
significant differences among clones,
Weak: 1.5% sucrose solution
except samples from the microcarpum
Strong: 4% sucrose solution
species. Also the variation in locations
(Pacajus and Paraipaba) were detected
Acid taste
only for a couple of descriptors
Characteristic of an acid citric solution
(juiciness and astringency) in the
Weak: 0.025% citric acid solution
CCP09 ratings. However, when the
Strong: 0.12% citric acid solution
descriptors were analyzed altogether by
Softness
a PCA (Fig. 1) all samples but CCP76
harvested in different locations were
discriminated (were located in different regions in the graphic). In Figure 1, when a sensory attribute was highly correlated to
another descriptor it was chosen only one of them because their vectors were overlapped. Descriptors cashew, juiciness and
astringency were omitted.
139
Table 2. Mean intensity ratings for sensory descriptors by clone and location of origin.
Descriptors
CCP09
CCP76
BRS189
CCP1001
Pacj
Prpb
Pacj
Prpb
Pacj
Prpb
Pacj
Prpb
Pungency
2.36ab 2.94ab 2.60ab 2.98ab 2.76ab 3.02ab 3.20a
2.89ab
Sweet aroma
4.48a
5.14a
5.32a
5.57a
4.70a
5.41a
5.00a
4.59a
Cashew aroma
5.46ab 6.50a
6.33a
6.42a
5.78ab 6.09a
6.14a
5.87ab
Swet taste
4.66b
5.70ab 5.14ab 5.60ab 5.08ab 5.85a
5.43ab 5.62ab
Acid taste
3.35ab 2.94abc 3.58a
3.41ab 3.28ab 2.37bc 3.34ab 3.24ab
Cashew flavor
5.68bc 6.42ab 6.52a
6.59a
5.88abc 6.62a
5.50a
6.58a
Softness
5.90ab 6.77a
6.08ab 6.38ab 6.00ab 6.56ab 5.57b
6.04ab
Juiciness
5.88b
6.90a
6.45ab 6.32ab 6.18ab 6.72ab 6.02ab 6.10ab
Astringency
4.95a
3.44bc 3.17bc 4.36ab 3.84ab 3.16bc 4.07ab 3.34bc
Throat irritation
3.78a
2.99ab 2.82ab 3.42ab 3.38ab 2.45b
3.42ab 2.83ab
Microc
Pacj
2.06b
4.65a
4.97b
6.13a
1.88c
5.59c
4.12c
3.95c
2.35c
2.35b
Pacj = Pacajus; Prpb = Paraipaba
Table 3. Mean values for chemical composition by clone and location of origin
CCP09
CCP76
BRS189
Pacj
Prpb
Pacj
Prpb
Pacj
Prpb
pH
4.33ab 4.35ab 4.36ab 4.37ab 4.26b
4.27b
Soluble solids
11.3b
11.5b
12.2ab 10.84b 11.9ab 11.4ab
(oBrix)
Titratable acidity
0.26a
0.25a
0.29a
0.26a
0.32a
0.34a
(g malic acid/l)
Tannins (mg/100g) 274a
235b
121c
104dc
105dc
108dc
Anacardic acids
37.87b 37.53b 24.67b 33.03bc 46.50a 50.97a
(mg/100g)
CCP1001
Pacj
Prpb
4.46ab 4.26a
10.7b
11.6ab
0.25a
Microc
Pacj
4.66a
13.5a
0.37a
0.29a
84d
85d
25.23ds 22.63d
115dc
35.67b
Pacj = Pacajus; Prpb = Paraipaba
Table 4. Pearson correlation coefficients and their significances for all sensory and chemical data.
Pung. Sweet
aroma
Pungency
Sweet aroma
Cashew
aroma
Sweet taste
Acid taste
1.00
Cashew
aroma
-0.04ns 0.38*
1.00
0.76**
1.00
Sweet
taste
Acid
taste
-0.46* 0.46*
ns
Flavor Softnes Juicine
0.43*
0.49*
0.65*
ns
ns
Astring
0.44*
ns
Irritation
0.49*
ns
Tannin Anacardic Solube
acid
soliss
-0,19ns
0.06ns
ns
ns
Titrabl
pH
Acidity
TTA
-0.54**
0.09ns
0.50**
0.28ns -0.11ns
-0.02ns -0.10ns
0.19ns
-0,19ns
0.55** -0.24
0.25ns 0.14ns
0.41* 0.36
0.29
-0.03
0.62** 0.69** 0.65** 0.13ns
-0.21
0.10ns
-0.36
-0.33ns
0.06
0.08ns
1.00
0,30ns
0,18ns
-0.09ns -0.22ns -0.56**
0.30ns 0.41* 0.55**
-0.63**
0.58**
-0.44*
0.12ns
-0.18ns
0.07ns
1.00
0.51** 0.54** -0,19ns
-0,18ns
-0,71**
-0.10ns
0.52** 0.02ns
0.02ns
0.50**
-0.25ns 0.10ns
0.23ns
0.29ns
0.85**
1.00
-0,04ns
-0.07ns
0.47*
0.43*
1.00
-0,21ns
-0.01ns
0.11ns
0.18ns
0.21ns
1.00
-0.41*
-0.45*
-0.29ns
-0.34ns
-0.05ns
0.21ns
-0.23ns
-0.09ns
-0.08ns
-0.09ns
-0.36ns
0.14ns
-0.45*
-0.55**
-0.38ns
-0.37ns
-0.06ns
-0.2ns
1.00
0.19ns
1.00
0.46*
-0.44*
1.00
Cashew
flavor
Softness
Juiciness
Astringency
Irritation
Tanni
Anacardic
acid
Soluble solids
Titr. acidity
pH
ns = no significant ; * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01
-0.70**
1.00
1.00
0.93** 0.27ns
1.00
0.32ns
1.00
0.53**
-0.57**
-0.21ns
The mean values for chemical composition data are shown in Table 3. Here, variation in locations were also not significant
for almost all parameters and clones. Only tannin content of clone CCP09 varied between material harvested in Paraipaba and
Pacajus. However, PCA analysis (Fig. 2) was able to discriminate also CCP76 samples. Overall, both principal components (PC
I and PC II) for sensory and chemical data explained 83.8% and 66.9%, respectively. CCP76 cashew apples showed high
intensities for sweet aroma, cashew aroma, cashew flavor, sweet taste, softness and juiciness. Material from Paraipaba showed
higher anacardic acid content but was poorer in soluble solids. CCP09 were characterized by peduncles with high tannin
content, high astringency and low intensities for sweetness and aromas. These characteristics were more evident in samples
harvested in Pacajus. Apples from clone BRS189 were very similar to those from CCP76, however material from Paraipaba was
more astringent. Clone CCP1001 showed apples with medium intensities for most the descriptors, but in Pacajus peduncles had
140
stronger sweet and cashew aromas. The microcarpum apples varied tremendously from the others and were characterized by an
intense sweet taste, low astringency and acid taste. However, these material showed the lowest softness and juiciness and was
also poor in cashew aroma and flavor.
The results of Pearson correlation analysis for all studied variables are shown in Table 4. Astringency and throat irritation
were highly positively correlated with tannin content and with each other. Sweet taste correlated positively with soluble solids
and pH and did negatively with acid taste, as it was expected. This descriptor also showed negative correlation with astringency,
throat irritation and tannin content, evidencing that sweetness can mask oral sensations elicited by tannins. Acid taste and
titratable acidity were negatively correlated with pH but were not correlated with each other. Cashew aroma and flavor
correlated positively with softness, juiciness and with each other as did softness and juiciness. Cashew flavor also was highly
negatively correlated with tannin content. Anacardic acid content was not significantly correalted with throat irritation. Probably
the additional irritation elicited by the astringency itself is masking the perception of anacardic acid vesicant effects.
Literature Cited
Agostini-Costa, T.S.; Jales, L.A.; Abreu, L.N.; Rossetti, A.G.; Silveira, E.R. 2003. Determination of anacardic acids in cashew
apples (Anacardium occidentale L.). Revista Brasileira de Plantas Medicinais. 5:77-81.
Crisóstomo, J.R.; Cavalcanti, J.J.V.; Barros, L.M.; Alves, R.E., Freitas, J.G.; Oliveira, J.N. 2002. Improvement of the dwarf
cashew tree: evaluation of the quality of the apple and the heterosis of their hybrids. Rev. Bras. Frutic. 24:477-480.
Garruti, D.S.; Rossetti, A.G.; Lima, R.C. 1999. Análise Descritiva Quantitativa de suco de pseudofrutos de cajueiro anãoprecoce (Anacardium occidentale L.) p.227-242. In: Almeida et al. (eds.) Avanços em Análise Sensorial. Livraria Varela. São
Paulo.
Moskowitz, H.R. 1983. Product testing and sensory evaluation of foods: Marketing and R&D approaches. Food and Nutrition
Press. Westport.
Moura, C. F. H., Alves, R. E., Filgueiras, H. A. C., Innecco, R., Pinto, S. A. A. 1998. Apple internal quality of new dwarf
cashew (Anacardium occidentale L. var. nanum) clones cultivated under irrigation and destined to fresh consumption..
Proceedings of the Interamerican Society for Tropical Horticulture. 42:119-123.
Pinto, S. A. A., Alves, R. E., Mosca, J. L., Filgueiras, H. A. C., Moura, C. F. H. 1997. Quality of the apple of some brazilian
early dwarf cashew clones (Anacardium occidentale) for fresh consumption. Proceedings of the Interamerican Society for
Tropical Horticulture. 41:189-193.
Stone H.; Sidel, J.; Oliver, S.; Woolsey, A; Singletion, R.C. 1974. Sensory evaluation by quantitative descriptive analysis. Food
Techn. 28:24-34. .
141