sugars also were negatively correlated with the same factor. The con-
sumer acceptance ratings for “recommendable” were positively corre-
lated with the first component, as was the intensity of the descriptive
juiciness. The descriptive sweet note clearly did not correlate the same
way as sugar concentrations. The possible beneficial effect of more sugar
and/or acid could thus not be detected, but the descriptive data for juicy
show a relationship to the liking ratings.
The descriptive attribute sweet note was neither dependent on sugar
content only nor on the juiciness, but on a combination of both. The
combination of both may be the effective stimulus for the sweet per-
ception, not the sugar concentration as such. A multiple-regression analy-
sis of descriptive and analytic data in the combined data of the first and
the second experiment showed that the sweet perception ratings of the
descriptive panel were highly significant (R^2 0,93) and correlated to
reducing sugars when combined with juiciness (Figure 10.3).
sweet note57.80.408 * juiciness
16.414 * reducing sugars (g/100g) (10.2)R^2 0.93190 INSTRUMENTAL DATA—CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE
FIGURE 10.2Principal-component analysis of sensory and instrumental data of toma-
toes in the nutrient solution experiment.