Next Article in Journal
AT-BOD: An Adversarial Attack on Fool DNN-Based Blackbox Object Detection Models
Previous Article in Journal
Monitoring Molecular Properties of a Fluorescence Light-Up Aptamer Using Fluorescence Cross-Correlation Spectroscopy
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Review on the Commonly Used Methods for Analysis of Physical Properties of Food Materials

1
Department of Food Processing Technology, Malda Polytechnic, West Bengal State Council of Technical Education, Government of West Bengal, Malda 732102, India
2
Department of Food Processing Technology, MMM Government Polytechnic, West Bengal State Council of Technical Education, Government of West Bengal, Plassey 741156, India
3
Department of Food Processing Technology, Diamond Harbour Government Polytechnic, West Bengal State Council of Technical Education, Government of West Bengal, Diamond Harbour 743331, India
4
SIAN Institute, Association for Biodiversity Conservation and Research (ABC), Balasore 756001, India
5
NatNov Bioscience Private Limited, Balasore 756001, India
6
School of Agricultural Sciences, Liaocheng University, 34 Wenhua Road, Liaocheng 252000, China
7
V. M. Gorbatov Federal Research Center for Food Systems of Russian Academy of Sciences, 26 Talalikhina St., 109316 Moscow, Russia
8
Research Department, K.G. Razumovsky Moscow State University of Technologies and Management (The First Cossack University), 73 Zemlyanoy Val, 109004 Moscow, Russia
9
Basic Department of Trade Policy, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, 36 Stremyanny per, 117997 Moscow, Russia
10
Department of Metrology, Standardization and Certification, Orenburg State University, 13 Pobedy Avenue, 460018 Orenburg, Russia
11
Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Innovative University of Eurasia, 45 Lomova St., Pavlodar 140000, Kazakhstan
12
Department of Economic Security and Risk Management, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, 49 Leningradsky Prospekt, 125993 Moscow, Russia
13
Department “Food Safety and Quality of Food Products”, Almaty Technological University, 100 Tole bi str., Almaty 050009, Kazakhstan
14
Department of Informational Technologies in Jurisprudence and Management Documentation, Russian University of Transport (MIIT), 9b9 Obrazcova Ulitsa, 127994 Moscow, Russia
15
Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Shakarim University of Semey, Semey 071412, Kazakhstan
16
Centro Tecnológico de la Carne de Galicia, rúa Galicia n° 4, Parque Tecnológico de Galicia, San Cibrao das Viñas, 32900 Ourense, Spain
17
Área de Tecnología de los Alimentos, Facultad de Ciencias de Ourense, Universidad de Vigo, 32004 Ourense, Spain
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(4), 2004; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12042004
Submission received: 16 November 2021 / Revised: 7 February 2022 / Accepted: 8 February 2022 / Published: 15 February 2022

Abstract

:
The chemical composition of any food material can be analyzed well by employing various analytical techniques. The physical properties of food are no less important than chemical composition as results obtained from authentic measurement data are able to provide detailed information about the food. Several techniques have been used for years for this purpose but most of them are destructive in nature. The aim of this present study is to identify the emerging techniques that have been used by different researchers for the analysis of the physical characteristics of food. It is highly recommended to practice novel methods as these are non-destructive, extremely sophisticated, and provide results closer to true quantitative values. The physical properties are classified into different groups based on their characteristics. The concise view of conventional techniques mostly used to analyze food material are documented in this work.

1. Introduction

The physical properties of food materials have defined those properties that can only be measured by physical means rather than chemical means [1,2]. Food materials are basically naturally occurring biological-originated raw materials that have their own exclusive physical identity that makes them unique in nature [3]. Due to the uniqueness of their physical properties, to properly measure the different physical characteristics of any food materials to get control and understand about the changes in their native physical characteristics with the influence of time-temperature-processing-treatment-exposure, proper measurement techniques for various physical properties of food materials are required with numerous desired outputs [4]. Since the inception of mechanization in measurements, various approaches were introduced by various scientists aiming at different desired outputs with different application purposes. In the case of food materials, proper measurements of different physical attributes are very much important for new product design and development, shelf-life enhancing and, most importantly, to maintain food safety and quality parameters [5,6,7]. Among the different conventional methods, most of the methods are time-consuming, laborious, and destructive, since during measuring operations the food products were either completely destroyed, were wasted, or got contaminated [8]. That means a huge loss results when measuring the physical attributes of a food product and also during processing. The proper measurement of different attributes is not possible, which results in improper measurement with respect to the different processing conditions [9]. Also, conventional measurement techniques are incapable of capturing the real-time changes of the product’s physical characteristics with changes in process parameters and also incapable of finding out the complex behavior of the inter-associated and intra-associated critical physical parameters [10,11]. Currently, with the help of emerging digital techniques, various novel techniques for measuring different physical properties of different food products are being introduced in the market along with evolutionary sophisticated high-end instruments with state-of-the-art facilities. Currently, these instruments are capable of capturing and estimating the real-time changes in food’s physical properties with almost zero product loss [10,12]. These new-age measurement approaches also provide reliable data and information concerning the physical properties and functional behavior of food components, which is critical and helps the food processors evaluate the possible substitution of food ingredients in new or existing food products. For the proper design of a new food product, we need a huge set of data under a different set of parameters with different operational conditions and this is only possible with the help of emerging novel digitalized measurements techniques [13]. Therefore, data generation is one of the prime driving factors behind the demand for measurement techniques involving novel methods [14]. There are several books [15,16,17,18] and review works [19,20,21] available about techniques for the analysis of the chemical and physical properties of food materials, but only a limited number of studies on the commonly used analysis techniques, their principles, applications, advantages, and disadvantages. In this review, the contemporary methodologies for estimating the physical properties of food materials are covered, aiming at a complete study of measurements of food materials.

2. Importance of Physical Analysis Methods in the Food Industry

Physical testing in the food industry refers to the methods used to evaluate a food product’s varied physical qualities. Color, viscosity, weight, thickness, granulation size, and texture are all common food product attributes examined. Physical testing in the food industry is usually employed as a quality indication, but it can also be used to ensure product consistency. Manufacturers can utilise this to evaluate product value, connect a product to consumer perception, and, in some situations, ensure food safety when a product must be cooked. Unusual physical outcomes could indicate a problem with the shelf life, production, and supply chain. Physical testing has a distinct advantage for businesses in terms of monitoring their suppliers’ items and catching problems before customers complain. Furthermore, when physical qualities are assessed in conjunction with consumer research, the physical test specification ranges can be linked to desirable product information. This can help determine preferences in terms of appearance, such as a certain hue, or texture, such as viscosity, firmness, and consistency. Because a product’s physical properties impact customer perspective and acceptability, determining optimal physicochemical characteristics can aid product development teams and retailers with knowledge on the part for drawing conclusions. Technologies that help in the physical analysis of food material is a subject of growing interest because of their non-destructive nature (Figure 1). Since the last half of the 20th century there has been an increase in the search for new physical analysis methods for the food industry. In Scopus and the Web of Science, a moderate number of papers are being published on this topic, and most of the published articles are research articles. The published works available in the field basically describe the working procedures, results, and validation of some particular methods on specific food products. Keyword searching reveals that the techniques to analyze the physical property of food materials are gaining the interest of researchers from academia, as well as from industry (>25 in 2022 to date, >75 in 2021 and >50 in 2020). Bibliometric analysis has revealed that there are several research papers available on the techniques for analysis of various physical properties of food materials, but there is a need for a concise review of the principles, specific field of applications, merits, and demerits of the techniques to provide an overall view of the rigorously practiced methods.

3. Techniques for Non-Destructive Physical Methods

During recent years, researchers have applied several novel techniques in the field of physical property assessment of different food commodities. Depending on the physical states of the food material, the methods of physical techniques that have been employed are described in Figure 2.

3.1. Ultrasonic Wave-Based Analysis

The ultrasonic frequency is beyond audible to human hearing. These acoustical or mechanical waves have a frequency of ≥20 kHz. An ultrasonic scanning system can be used for food diagnostic purposes (physicochemical properties like flow rate, structure, composition, and physical state), especially for soybean, honey, cereals, meat, and aerated foods (Table 1) [22]. Volume estimation, firmness, maturity of fruits [23,24,25], rheological properties of cereal products [26], determination of fat percentage in meat [27], and defect detection in cheese [28] have been measured or conducted with ultrasound. Ultrasound velocity, attenuation coefficient, signal and wave amplitude, acoustic impedance, and relative delay are the parameters considered for analysis of food materials [29,30]. The techniques provide the following advantages: portable, simple, low power consumption, lower operational cost, adaptability for both liquid and solid foods, and environmentally friendly [29]. The limitations of the techniques are shock wave generation, followed by degradation of products, and radical formation followed by off-flavor formation in the products subject to analysis. Surface characteristics and homogeneity of products may affect test efficiency and the development of mass transfer resistance [22].

3.2. Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio

The Sitkey technique was applied by researchers to determine the Poisson’s ratio as a function of moisture content and Young’s modulus as a function of loading rate. A material testing machine was used to perform the test. It found that there is a negative correlation between the Poisson’s ratio of the grains and moisture content. On the other hand, the reverse was found for the loading rate. For the grains, Young’s modulus is inversely proportional to moisture content and loading rate [31].

3.3. Compressibility Analysis through High-Pressure Processing (HPP)

Processing food by applying high pressure is now an impactful technique to preserve different foods. High pressures exhibit bulk compression loading on the food. At high pressure (400–1000 MPa) and adiabatic conditions with a pressure change of 100 MPa, there is a change in water temperature of 3 °C. Pressurization of food material leads to changes in rheological properties, thermodynamic properties, and compression heating [32]. It is a non-destructive green technique, but the food composition and solute concentration are the limiting factors for the efficacy of the technique. Moreover, it is not suitable for solid food products [32].

4. Techniques for Mechanical Impact Assessment

Non-periodic, non-continuous, and instantaneous load is defined as a mechanical impact. If two convex bodies are in contact and one of the bodies has a high velocity, there may be different effects, such as wave propagation and contact in the impact area [33].

4.1. Hertz Contact and Impact Measurement Parameters

Food samples show that there can be three categories of impact measurement parameters. These parameters can be listed as absorbed energy, load velocity, impact energy, and rebound energy. All of them are categorized into three groups: (i) maximum impulse, bruise dimensions, permanent and maximum deformation, and critical deep; (ii) rebound velocity, the slope of the force-time curve (S), maximum impact force (F), and the ratio of F and S; and (iii) impact duration (ID), time of impact (TI), TI–ID, etc. [34,35]. These parameters possess a linear correlation with the ripeness stage of the fruit [35]. The use of this correlation quality and these maturity indexes for fruits can be developed with the help of parameters. Researchers have proven that the elasticity modulus of fruits is correlated to their maturity stages and have classified the fruits based on the ripening stage [36,37]. In this technique, it has been assumed that the contact area is circular and frictionless, and that deformation should be within the limit of deformation. Thus, the technique is suitable only for good quality, sphere-shaped, and smooth-surfaced fruits. But the method is useful for collision mechanic models [35].

4.2. Vibration Study and Mechanical Impact Based Method

The study of vibrational characteristics leads to the determination of fruit firmness using an elasticity modulus. From different studies, it can be concluded that waves transmitted through the fruit surface with velocity transmission provide highlights of fruit texture attributes such as firmness, as the ripening condition of fruits is correlated to velocity of wave propagation [38]. An advantageous feature of the technique is that it supports condition monitoring from a distance. For predictive maintenance, well-established signal assessment methods are available, supported by a variety of commercially accessible sensors for diverse operational scenarios. Meanwhile, the demerits are as follows: it is difficult to pinpoint the source of a problem; fracture development is hard to track; and there are a lot of prerequisites for the development of a good system architecture [39].

5. Techniques for Texture Profile Analysis (TPA)

To correlate the rheological property of food with the mechanical testing method is a great challenge. Instron universal testing machines (UTM) are successfully employed to understand food rheology. TPA is an instrumental method that compresses the testing material for two times the mechanical parameters that are quantified from the force deformation curve (Table 2) [40,41]. Figure 3 represents the physical properties of fruits and vegetables and their techniques for measurement.

TPA Performance

Several studies have proved the need for TPA. The effect of reduction in fat content on cheddar cheese texture has been observed by researchers. It has been found that the rheological properties like hardness, adhesiveness, springiness, and values from the instrumental analysis are extremely correlated with the sensory analysis [42]. Researchers have observed that composition and storage facilities significantly affect the resilience, chewiness, and firmness of sliced cheese [43]. Near-infrared hyperspectral imaging is one of the non-invasive techniques for TPA measurement. Researchers have successfully implemented the technique for salmon fillets [40]. Biospeckle activity is another novel optical technique for firmness analysis that has been implemented to ascertain apple firmness [44]. The TPA performance depends on the sample height, compression speed, diameter ratio of sample and probe, initial height over the sample, and geometry of the probe used [45]. Despite the numerous published publications on the use of instrumental TPA to define solid foods, it cannot be considered a unified method. This is because the instrumental TPA, in all of its forms, has a number of fundamental defects (e.g., calibration-related issues, mechanical issues) [46]. The sample height is important in determining the TPA. Similarly, friction between sample and plates, overall dimension of sample and aspect ratio may affect the analysis results. However, it is obvious that bite size is not the determining factor for the texture in real cases [46], although the simplicity of the approach and its cost-intensive nature make it a popular method in food texture analysis.

6. Novel Techniques for Viscosity Analysis

6.1. Tomographic Velocity Profiling

Tomographic velocity profiling is one of the emerging technologies. The working principle lie in the measurement of the velocity profile, which is specific to a cross-section of pipe and thereby determines the drop in pressure for a specific length. Unlike regular tube viscometry, whose theory is based on volumetric formulas for measuring viscosity data points, tomographic viscometry involves shear rate data points from the viscosity profile [47,48]. The non-invasive and non-destructive manner of operation, as well as the in-line measurement of rheological parameters (e.g., slip velocity, yield stress, and shear viscosity) are the advantageous features of the process. In most liquid food, scattering particles are present that determine the flow characteristics. For food materials where scattering particles are more abundant, a portion of the velocity profile may be recorded instead of profiling the entire velocity [49].

6.2. Mass-Detecting Capillary Viscometer (MDCV)

The MDCV has been used to study the rheology of dairy products for a shear rate range measuring the variation of liquid-mass with time. The operation process is simple and easy. A wide range of shear rate (1–103/s) can be measured for non-Newtonian fluids [50]. The MDCV is capable of measuring the continuous change in viscosity over a range of shear rate through the measurement of alteration in the mass of liquid with respect to time.

6.3. Ultrasonic Doppler Velocimetry (UDV)

Viscosity is an important physical parameter of food. UDV can be effectively employed for viscosity determination. In the industrial scale crystallization process, UDV is employed. Flow behavior, complex rheological behavior such as yield stress, and viscoelasticity can also be measured [51]. The non-intrusive design of UDV is advantageous, apart from that it has other merits like ease of installation, lower contamination chance, lower chance of leakage, insensitivity toward density, viscosity, and temperature of fluid, and the potential to work with corrosive liquid. But operating UDV is difficult for fluids with very low velocity. To reflect the ultrasonic signal, the liquid stream must contain any kind of particles and/or bubbles and, therefore, UDV is not suitable for highly clean fluids or water. The particle distribution within the fluid may affect the performance of the UDV [51].

6.4. Reflectance Sensor

A reflectance sensor acts on the principle of reflectance at the liquid surface as it does not transmit through the liquid. Evaluation of the viscosity of the food products is done with the help of density and viscosity sensors. This method is gaining increased popularity because of its robustness and also because flow rate and vibrations have no impact on the process [52]. Upon reflection on the surface of the liquid, the shear wave propagates approximately one-half of a wavelength (i.e., ~1 mm) within the sample, thus near-surface characteristics should be the indicative of the bulk, or otherwise useful information cannot be generated. Frequencies at which commercial shear transducers operate are substantially quicker than most real-world fluid deformations [53].

6.5. Ultrasonic Wave Propagation-Based Sensors

Food materials are susceptible to the different processing techniques applied to them. That is why minimal processing with low-density ultrasonics are non-destructive. Textural analysis can be done by measuring velocity and attenuation. If tissue analysis of whole fruit is required, then a single-touch system may be used for whole fruit [30]. Continuous and on-line analysis is possible with this technique. Sensors may malfunction in extreme alterations in temperature and radical convection. The other drawbacks for the technique are inflexibility in the methods of scanning and limitations in testing distances [54].

7. Emerging Techniques of Measurement of Firmness

The firmness of food products is a reflection of the quality of food. It is one of the attributes upon which consumer acceptance is decided. Available tests are generally destructive tests that are not applicable to firmness-based grading [55].

7.1. Non-Destructive Impact-Based Measurements

Fruit impact with sensing elements and dropping the fruit on force transducers are the two methods for impact measurement. Several studies have shown the use of the non-destructive detectors or sensors for impact analysis [56].

7.2. Non-Destructive Microdeformation-Based Sensors

Deformations may occur in fruits during compression. To mitigate this issue, non-destructive sensors are used that can measure the extent of deformation during compression. A spherical plunger is used for indenting the fruit surface, taking care of the damage issue [57,58]. A piezoelectric sensor or analogue record the non-destructive force-deformation curve that is positioned at the back of the compression plunger [59]. The maximum pressure and slope of the plunger are the limiting factors for this technique [60].

7.3. Vibration-Based Technique

This technique involves the fruit being subject to blows from a small hammer. The produced mechanical vibration is estimated with the help of accelerometers or laser vibrometers. The computer system is attached to a measuring instrument to calculate the frequency response spectrum obtained from the time domain signal. The resonance frequencies are directly related to the mechanical properties of the fruit. Hence, fruit firmness can be characterized from these data. The resonance frequency and fruit firmness are directly proportional [61]. The demerit of an accelerometer-aided technique is that in this technique the device needs to be attached to the fruit surface, which may cause surface patches. Apart from this, concentration of excitation energy and un-uniformity are the other drawbacks of this technique, while the laser vibrometer technique can measure the real-time vibrational signal without surface contact with the food [62,63].

7.4. Image-Analysis-Based Methods

The first criteria to attract consumers to fruits are probably texture and appearance. A machine vision system may be applied for judging fruit characteristics. Light scattering is a reflection of the structural characteristics of the fruit. Hence, it can be used to judge fruit firmness. The optical system method is successfully employed to determine apple fruit firmness. A 670 nm laser was used for light scattering. The camera and stereomicroscope were set up for measuring their scattering. The region of interest can be selected according to the studies targeted using hyperspectral imaging (HI) to accommodate the drawbacks of juncture assessment and/or background noise. Both spectral and spatial information can be gathered with this process [64]. Smartphone-based digital image analysis is an emerging section in food quality analysis [65]. The image-analysis-based methods are suitable for non-invasive analysis of meat, fish, and poultry products (Figure 4). The non-destructive and non-invasive characteristics, in-line adaptability, and little or no sample preparations are the features that make the technique popular. However, the complexity, cost involvement, and sensitive detectors are the limitations for HI. While the requirement of a large database, computational complexity, and the requirements for large storage space and fast computers are the limiting factors for digital image analysis.

7.5. Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (NIR)

In NIR, the electromagnetic range is set between 780 nm and 2500 nm. The incident radiation on the food sample is measured with a spectrophotometer. Radiation on the sample may be absorbed, reflected, or transmitted, and therefore each phenomenon reflects food characteristics. From absorption data, the chemical composition of the sample can be measured. Meanwhile, the microstructure of tissue can be related to scattering [66]. It is a non-invasive, rapid method and no or very little sample preparation is required for this technique [67]. Overlapping and the presence of multiple peaks are abundant in NIR spectra. Thus, multivariate analyses coupled with statistical analysis are required to extract the significant information [68].

7.6. Ultrasonic Wave Propagation Methods

It is the non-destructive method that assists in the determination of the freshness of food materials. A pair of ultrasonic transducers (80 kHz) is used to determine the mealiness in food. One of the transducers transmits a pulse through food tissue and thereby, based on the internal texture of the food, the tissue absorbs energy. Another transducer gets the transmitted pulse as an emerging signal [30]. Peak frequency, attenuation, and the flight and wave velocity of transmitted signals are analyzed to determine the firmness characteristics, such as elastic modulus and bioyield strength. For peach (0.542), pear (0.730), and apple (0.792) strong correlation coefficients have been observed for the prediction model of bioyield strength [69]. The requirement of a relatively smooth surface and complications for food materials with irregular shapes (e.g., jackfruit) are the limitations of this method.

7.7. Time-Resolved Diffuse Spectroscopy (TRS)

To characterize highly diffusive media, the TRS method can be employed. A laser light pulse is used in TRS, and it is injected into the sample under study. Here, the absorption coefficient is represented by μa, and μ is the transport scattering coefficient. These two can be evaluated from the time distribution curve [70]. High temporal and spectral resolution is obtained in this non-destructive technique. The absorption characteristics are representative of the bulk material and not a characteristic of surface attributes. The absorption coefficients and transport scattering coefficients are under 1 cm−1 and 25 cm−1, respectively, for fruits with thin skin [71]. Thus, it is not suitable for thick-skinned fruits.

7.8. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Spectroscopy and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)

The NMR technique has served as a novel method for food analysis for many years. It can easily detect the presence of sugar, water, and oil in food particles. The sensory quality of potatoes has been studied using NMR imaging [72]. The MRI images can be used for firmness analysis predictions with ANN [73]. Researchers have considered MRI and NMR for orange firmness analysis, and built a robust model with 0.84 and 0.92 Pearson correlation coefficients [74]. It is a non-invasive method and can be used for real-time, in-line inspection of food quality. The cost-intensive nature, safety concerns, and requirement for skilled operators restrict the use of these techniques in developing countries [75].

8. Techniques for Crispness Measurement

The quality of dry food may be measured by several attributes, one of which is crispness, but defining crispness for all food commodities is difficult as it may differ from one product to another. Crispness of fruits and vegetables may be defined as the cracking sound that evolved from sudden fracture upon the application of force [76,77,78]. Besides sensory analysis, there are instrumental methods also available for crispness measurement.

8.1. Mechanical Measurement of Crispness

Mechanical tests applied to crispness measurement may be categorized as compression, shear, and flexure test. The sensory and Instron tests have been used to measure the crispness level of different foods. To conduct the test, various cutting devices are employed and it has been found that, in cereals, shear force may be the crispness indicator [79,80,81,82]. The method is simple and rapid, and the output results are easy to interpret and, moreover, are convenient in an industry environment and economically viable [83]. Because of unusual shapes, sizes, and/or the simultaneous presence of non-crisp portions in food, crispness analysis is found to be difficult with this method. Humidification of crisp products causes negative correlations between force and crispness value [84].

8.2. Acoustic Measurement of Crispness

This method is based on the cracking or rupturing sound created during the fracture of the food material [85]. The sound is developed during machine crushing and recorded. Crispness has been measured using sound signal features, and the result was cross-checked by the sensory panelist. An audio recording system is employed with the features: a dynamic microphone, Waver Studio software, and sound card. A neural network technique and principal component regression were used to analyze sound features to predict the crispness [80].

8.3. Ultrasonic Measurement of Crispness

The ultrasonic pulse-echo technique has been used to study the crispness of biscuits [86], ciabatta crust [87], chicken nuggets [88], cornflakes [89], and apples [90,91]. It has been found that the velocity of longitudinal sound and sensory crispness has a strong correlation [76]. It is a non-destructive and rapid method. The key challenge for this technique is to standardize the numbers of the acoustic peak, force peak, and sound pressure level, as these parameters may vary for individual products [92].

9. Woolliness and Mealiness Measurement

Mealiness and wooliness in fruits are such characteristics that are absolutely not acceptable. Mealiness is a state in fruits when sandy texture is observed because of a lack of juiciness [93]. Woolliness is described as a dry, soft texture of fruit with a loss of aroma and flavor. As these attributes of fruits are not easily detectable in the selection chain, non-destructive instruments may be an alternative option. The best possible mechanical test to detect apple mealiness may be the shear stress rupture test. Non-destructive measurement has become more popular these days. These include impact response, ultrasonic wave propagation, NMR spectroscopy, time-resolved reflectance spectroscopy, imaging, and chlorophyll fluorescence.

9.1. Impact Response-Based Techniques

To detect mealy fruits based on sensory analysis, healthy or mealy fruits are classified. We observed that mealiness is highly correlated with maximum resistance to impacts. From the results of the impact-response test, it is easy to classify healthy and mealy fruits. In other experiments, signal detection tools are used, specifically receiver operate curves (ROCs), to get the nature of discriminate analysis with varying cut-off points [94]. Researchers have found that peak accelerometer output and firmness possess lower correlation coefficients for apple (0.55), while the same for pear (0.80) and peach (0.92) are relatively better [95]. The impact location and angle greatly influence the impact response, and therefore the characteristics of the fruit surface may affect the final result [95,96].

9.2. Detection Method Based on Quantity of Free Juice

Mealiness and woolliness are attributes that are defined by a lack of juiciness. The confined compression test has been done with peach and apple. The texture analyzer inserts the load cylinder until the fruit pulp gets maximum deformation. After compression, the fruit juice is extracted and taken in a drying paper. The juiciness is measured as the area stained by the juice. That will in turn correlate to mealiness and woolliness [97]. The process is simple and easy to implement, but the expert opinion is that dependency is the main challenge for this technique [98].

9.3. Techniques Based on Imaging

Images developed from a light microscope may be useful for differentiating between fresh and mealy fruits. Parameters such as area and perimeter (cell parameter), and two roundness parameters are set for evaluation from the images. When the tensile loading test was performed for mealy fruit, fewer broken cells were found in the surface after fracture than for fresh fruit [99]. Multiconstituent information can be accessed with non-destructive techniques, but time- and cost-intensive methods, maintenance of the equipment, and operator skill are other limiting factors [93].

9.4. Time-Resolved Reflectance Spectroscopy (TRS)

Mealiness in fruits was evaluated by time-resolved laser spectroscopy [100]. A confined compression test was done to categorize mealy and non-mealy fruits. The coefficients (optical) were set as variables that will produce functions of identification for mealiness. A calibration curve is prepared with 15 TRS variables. This curve will classify the two types of fruits. It is a non-destructive analysis technique, although the dependency on expert opinion is the major disadvantage [93,101]. The absorption coefficient varies for different fruits, and therefore it is difficult to standardize the absorption coefficients for each type of fruit and for the physical property intended to be measured and subjected to experimentation [101].

9.5. The Use of Modeling for Predicting Mealiness

Fruit mealiness is evaluated with linear regression models [93]. During storage, the level of mealiness was studied by the mechanistic model from the turgor pressure of the tissue. The technique is simple and easy to implement, and a high coefficient of correlation (0.96) has been found. The limitations of the technique are the requirement for an independent data set for model validation, non-consideration of the state variables such as pectin and symplastic water content, and no changes in temperature and oxygen concentration have been assumed [102].

9.6. Methods Based on Chlorophyll Fluorescence

After absorbance of light or electromagnetic waves by any substance, emission at different wavelengths is called fluorescence. Photosynthesis activity is associated with chlorophyll fluorescence measurement. Loss of chlorophyll implies a decrease in the photosynthesis rate, which ultimately shows the ripening of vegetables. A study showed that in the chlorophyll fluorescence kinetics of fruits, with the decrease in fluorescence value, an increase in the mealiness-level fluorescence values was observed. The destructive method showed 82% classification efficiency, while the same for chlorophyll fluorescence was 85% [103]. Based on this result, the mealiness level may be categorized and a more accurate result is obtained than from destructive tests [104]. The method is rapid, non-invasive, and easy to install in packaging lines for quality inspection, although the pigment concentration in the fruit and the temperature dependency are limiting factors [103,105].

10. X-ray Computed Tomography (CT)

Through CT, the interior part of any solid object can be visualized. It is also a non-destructive method. Digital information on the properties of the object can be generated through it. X-ray tubes are mainly used as the source, but gamma rays can also be used [106]. The soxhlet method was compared by researchers to validate the efficacy of CT for fat determination in beef, and satisfactory results (r = 0.92–0.99, p < 0.001) were observed [107]. Determination of the 3D structure in a non-invasive approach and analysis of pore size, bubble distribution, wall thickness measurement, and the existence of foreign matter is possible with CT, although the cost- and time-intensive nature, operator dependency, and image artefacts (phase-contrast, cone-beam, and beam-hardening) are the limitations of CT [108].

11. MRI Technique

MRI is the formation of a very weak magnetization field produced by atomic nuclei of body tissue in the presence of another magnetic field. The density of the nuclei is correlated to the magnetization, and hence it shows the nature of the distribution of atoms. In an MRI, mainly hydrogen atoms are observed. Therefore, softer tissue with large water molecules can be studied well in an MRI [109]. Fat content (40 ± 23 mg/g) determined by an MRI demonstrated an association with GC (39 ± 16 mg/g) in starving fish. For well-fed fish, however, there was no agreement. This could be attributable to non-triglyceride lipid synthesis in well-fed fish and MRI and GC sensitivity differences. From this study, it is obvious that the MRI may more precisely depict fat content [110]. The non-invasive and non-destructive features of this technique make it attractive for food analysis [73], but for the cost-intensive nature and difficulty in analysis of food materials in the metastable physical state (e.g., subcool materials) [111].
The physical properties, their significance in the food industry, their techniques for measurement, interpretation of the measured results, brief working principle, and the objective of the analysis have been listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Physical properties of different food commodities.
Table 1. Physical properties of different food commodities.
Physical PropertySignificance in Food IndustryUnitInterpretation of Measured DataMeasurement TechniquePrincipleMeasured PropertyObjective of AnalysisReference
Water Activity (WA)Assessment of internal structure of the food, effect on food texture and shelf-life assessment.-WA > 0.90 growth of bacteria; WA < 0.70 growth of molds inhibit; WA < 0.60 growth of most of the microorganisms inhibitWater activity meter.Ratio of the vapour pressure (VP) of the water in food and the VP of the pure water.Equillibrium relative humidityQuality characteristic measurement for Sugar and sugar replacers, Starch powders, Agar gels.[1,112]
HygroscopicityAssessment of a food’s ability to absorb moisture.-Powdered food with high hygroscopicity likely to be clump formation with simultaneous increase in texture hardeningHygrometersWorks on the concept of evaporative cooling.Amount of moisture uptake by a specific fod materialMoisture sorption isotherm modeling for starch and wheat gluten, Corn starch, pepper[113]
MassMeasure for inertia and heaviness of a body.kg/g/mg-Weighing balance.A counteracting force is created to be compared to the unknown mass.Quantity of matterTo meet product formulation standards and manufacturing specifications[1]
DensityMass per unit volume.kg/m3>1 kg/m3 (at STP) food material will sink in waterHydrometerDisplacement of its own weight within a fluid.Mass and volume Alcohol concentration of drinks; Solids in
sugar syrups; Density, specific gravity and absorption of fine aggregate; Specific gravity of pigments.
Specific GravityRatio of the absolute density of a food material to the density of a reference material-Determines whether the solid food materials will sink or float in liquid mediumSpecific gravity bottleLiquid densities are measured by measuring the weight difference between an empty and filled bottle and dividing by an equal volume of water.Density of food materials and water
Bulk DensityDensity of powders like food materials which contain hollow spaces or voids filled with gas, normally air.g/mLHigh bulk density is desirable in terms of food transportation and packaging-By measuring the volume of a known mass of powder sample that may have been passed through a sieve into a graduated cylinder.Determination of powdered food characteristics especially for grinding and spray drying process
Particle SizeParticles with a regular shape are characterized by their linear dimensions (lengths) along their principal axes.m/cm/mmAffect the flowability, solubility and reactivity, and the shelf life, processing condition, organoleptic properties and texture of the final product (e.g., sieving considered for >63 micron particles; sedimentation hindered when size <10 nm)Particle Size AnalyzerThe angle of incidence light scattering is inversely proportional to particle size.DiameterTexture and organoleptic characterisation of chocolate, fibres of grain, powdered food, and sizing of protein nano-fibres.[114,115,116]
Specific Surface Area (S.A)Quantification of internal surface area or size of individual particles within a disperse systemm2/kg or m2/gMaterials with 500–3000 m2/g S.A suitable for solute and gas absorption; 200 m2/g S.A suitable for catalystBrunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface area analysis Surface areaMass and heat transfer calculation, gas and moisture permiability through packaging materials
SphericityCompactness compared with a perfect sphere of same dimension.-Sphericity value ≈ 1 (sphere), ≈0.00271 (cube), ≈0.00155 (cylinder) Ratio of the surface area of an equal-volume sphere to the actual surface area of the particle.Surface area and volumeAnalysis and design of food process equipment
Sauter Diameter (SD)Diameter of a hypothetical sphere with the same specific surface as the irregular shaped particle.m/cm/mm/μmCoarse particle (SD > 10 mm); fine particle ≈ 1 mm, ultrafine particle < 0.1 mmDiameter gaugeRatio of surface area and volume of particleSurface area and volumeGrinding characteristics measurement for wheat grain and size reduction characterisation
Uniaxial StressIt is caused by a force pushing or pulling the body in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the solid body upon which the force is acting.Pa-Strain gauge hole-drilling methodDeformation around the holeDeformed areaAlginate gel: stress strain behavior and viscoelasticity. Fruit and vegetable puree products: rheological properties. Ketchup: hydrocolloids and flow behaviour.
Powders: flow properties, nonflow problems.
Wheat flour: rheological properties using farinograph, extensograph, valorigraph, alveograph device.
[117,118,119,120,121,122]
Young’s ModulusIt is the slope of the linear part of the stress-strain curve for a material under tension or compression.-Addition fat reduces the young’s modulus i.e., the decrease in rigidity. The harder is the food material the higher is the young’s modulusOscillating rodEstimated with the help of stress-strain curve.Alteration in length, and uniaxial stress
Bulk ModulusThe relative change in the volume of a body produced by a unit compressive or tensile stress acting uniformly over its surface.Pa -The measure of the ability of a substance to withstand changes in volume when under compression on all sides. It is equal to the quotient of the applied pressure divided by the relative deformation.Pressure and volume
Shear ModulusIt is the resulting stress When a force is acting parallel to a surface.PaThe higher the shear modulus the higher is the rigidity of the food material--Pressure and strain
Newtonian Flowlinear relationship between shear stress (SS) and resulting shear rate (SR).-Reynolds no (NR) <2000; visosity not change with applied forceBall viscometer Elapsed time for the ball to fall under gravityFlow behaviour of liquid food materials for process design, quality measure and flexible container design
Non-Newtonian Flownon-linear relationship between SS and SR.-NR >2000; visosity change with applied forceBrookfield viscometer Torque
Interfacial Surface Tension (IST)It is the force of attraction between the molecules at the interface of two fluids.N/mEmulsion stability increases with the ISTForce tensiometerDu Noüy ring method; Wilhelmy plate methodForce and lengthFoam stability of ice-cream; Physical properties of chocolate[123]
PermeabilityQuantification of the relative ease with which a transporting substance can pass through the material.m2/s-PaLower the permeability of the packaging material lower will be the shelf life of the food productHelium Permeability Meter Pressure, massUndertanding the moisture transfer phenomenon during drying of fruits; mass tranfer phenomenon in lactose crystallization,
Whey-protein-coated plastic films; design of pulse electric and ohmic heat process.
[124,125,126,127]
ConductivityIt can be defined as a measure of electrical conduction.Siemens per meter (S/m)Efficiency of pulsed electric and ohmic heat proces is depend on conductivity of food materialsconductivity meterIt is the ability of a material to conduct electric current.Resistivity
ResistanceIt is a measure of the opposition to current flow in an electrical circuit.Ohm (Ω)Juiciness and tenderness of meat products are correlated with the resistanceOhmmeterDeflection of pointer to left or right side in ohmmeter due to current passing through it indicate low/high resistance.
Heat capacity (HC)Thermal property that indicates the ability of the material to hold and store heat.Joule per Kelvin(J/K)Food materials with high HC have more energy and take higher cooking timeDifferential scanning calorimeterThe difference in the amount of heat required to increase the temperature of a sample and reference are measured as a function of temperature.change in temperature, heat flow/unit timeCharacterization and understanding of thermo physical properties for meat;
modelling thermal properties for cheddar cheese;
prediction of thermal properties during freezing and thawing for meat and dough; thermal conductivity and heat capacity for shrimp; investigation for thermal properties of ice-cream and
heat conductivity of food materials
[128,129,130]
Thermal conductivityHeat transfer ability of foodWatts per meter-Kelvin (W/(m⋅K)It dictates how quickly heat may be evenly distributed throughout the food mass, affecting the quality of the end product.Thermal conductivity meter (The two types of thermal conductivity meter are steady-state and non-steady-state, also called transient, conductivity meters)Steady state (when the temperature of the substance being measured remains constant over time), frequency (sensor and hot-wire based method), and time domain (During the heating up phase, transient approaches take measurements) techniques.Amount of heat transfer, change in temperature, surface area of food material
Thermal diffusivity (TD)It is the thermal conductivity divided by density and specific heat capacity at constant pressure.Square metres per second (m2 s−1)Most of the food materials lies within the range of 1.05 × 107 m2 s−1 (apple juice) to 1.82 × 107 m2 s−1 (peas). Higher the TD the lower time will require to cool or heat the productDiscovery Flash Diffusivity instruments-Density, specific heat capacity, thermal conductivity
Calorific value (CV)Heat generated due to complete combustion of specified quantity at constant pressure under normal conditions.kJ/kg4 kcal/g for carbohydrate and protein and 9 kcal/g for fat, higher the CV higher is the energy content of the foodBomb CalorimeterEnergy released by burning a representative sample in a high- pressure oxygen atmosphere within a metal pressure vessel or “bomb” absorbed within the calorimeter and the resulting temperature change within the absorbing medium is noted.Increase in temperature
Capacitancecapacity of a component to collect and store energy in the form of an electrical charge.Farad (F) capacitance meterThe capacitance meter works based on the directly proportional relationship between capacitance and a time constant.VoltageFish quality measurement using electrical properties and
Monitoring microbial growth
[131,132,133]
InductanceAbility of an inductor to store energy.Henry (H) LCR meter-Cross sectional area, length and current
ParamagnetismWeakly attachment towards magnetic fields.-If the total number of electrons in a molecule is 10 and 16, or odd, the molecule is paramagnetic.--Electron configurationOn-line water content during cooking for rice; NMR imaging during drying process of noodles; meat muscle characterization, water binding, freezing by NMR for meat[134]
DiamagnetismMagnetic property assesment-If the total number of electrons in a molecule is even except 10 and 16 the molecule is paramagnetic.-Change in the motion of electrons upon application of magnetic fieldElectron configuration
FerromagnetismStrong attachment towards magnetic fields.- --Electron configuration
Electric polarizationSeparation of centre of positive charge and the centre of negative charge in a material with help of high-electric field.Coulomb per square metre (C·m−2)It influence the dielectric heating of food materialsPolarimeter-Dipole momentSequential treatment of drinking water with UV and ozone; combined treatment of pulsed light and to inactivate microorganism;pulsed UV treatment of milk; gelling temperature investigation of gelling gels, rheologic and dielectric properties; analytical fingerprinting with spectroscopic
techniques for butter and margarine; identifying coffee arabica, robusta and blends by NIRS.
[135,136,137,138,139]
Refractive indexRatio of the velocity of light in a vacuum to the velocity of light in a material.-Higher refractive index refers to higher total soluble solid contentRefractometerThe concentration of a particular substance within a given solution is measured. It operates based on the principle of refraction. When rays of light pass from one medium into another, they are bent either toward or away from a normal line between the two media.Angle of refractionMeasure for concentration and purity of food materials
ColourSensory attributeTCU
(True Color Unit)
L = 0 (black), = 100 (white); a = +ve (red) = −ve (green); b = +ve (yellow), = −ve (blue)ColorimeterIt is based on Beer-Lambert’s law, according to which the absorption of light transmitted through the medium is directly proportional to the medium concentration.Concentration or intensity of colourstandardising and checking of ingredient colour allows them to maintain control over the colour of their final goods and analyse colour changes during manufacturing, transit, and preservation.
Table 2. Physical methods of analysis for different food commodities.
Table 2. Physical methods of analysis for different food commodities.
Food SystemTechniquesKey FeatureQuality AttributeApplicationReference
Fruits and VegetablesComputer vision systemNon-invasive and rapid methodShape, size, mass, volume, colour, texture, external damages, calyxes.Indian gooseberry, Mushroom[65,140,141,142,143]
Air pycnometerBoyle- Mariotte law; Time consuming processVolumeGrape[144]
Optical ring sensorLight-blocking-based system (LBB)SizePotato[145,146]
VolumeZucchinis, cucumbers[147,148]
Orthonormal imagingOrthonormal algorithmsVolumeCarrot[149]
Imaging3D surface modelingMass and volumeTomatoes, carrot, apple[150]
Volume intersectionIrregular shape determination, cost effectiveVolume, surface areaTomatoes, apples[151]
Machine vision system artificial retina, photo sensorDigital image analysis is not requiredVolumeEggplant, orange[152]
RadiometerAdequate for prolate fruitsSizeJalapeño[149]
Hyperspectral imaging WeightPepper[153]
HydrometerCost effectiveSpecific gravityPotato[154]
NIR spectroscopyNon-destructiveSpecific gravityPinus taeda[155]
Particle size analyzerDiffraction angle-based measurementParticle size
Propeller drivenConventional methodStickinessMango, coffee, tomato soup powder,[156]
Glass transition temperatureIndirect methodStickinessCoffee, food powder[157,158]
Texture analyzersStress-to-strain ratioTexture profile, hardness, cohesiveness, adhesiveness, etc.Asparagus[159]
Vibration measurementsProbe driven by electromagnetic energy and microphone-based techniqueFirmnessTomato[160]
Acoustic measure0–50 Hz, >1000 Hz frequency analysisTexture profileCucumber[161]
Impact responseLow-mass impact sensor, capturing of impact signalFirmnessTomato[153]
Micro deformation sensorsForce deformation curve, compression deformationFirmnessTomato[162]
Ultrasonic wave propagationContinuous-touch ultrasonic systemFirmnessTomato, apple[163,164]
Nuclear magnetic resonanceCost extensiveMorphological, physical parameters, thickness
X-ray computed tomographyNon-destructive, microstructure analysis is possible, online inspection friendlyOverall quality, maturitySweet potato[165]
FluorescenceRapid, reliable, non-destructiveTexture, colourBroccoli[166]
Time-resolved diffuse reflectance spectroscopyNon-destructiveTextureTomato[167]
Laser-scattering imagingNon-destructiveFirmnessTomato[168]
Friction force microscope, atomic force microscopy, tribometer, contact profilometry, surface force apparatusSurface contacting techniquesSurface texturePotato[169]
Confocal laser scanning microscopy, fiber-optic reflectometer, gloss meter, surface glistening points method, angle-resolved light scatteringNon surface contacting techniquesSurface texture (average roughness, root-mean square roughness, average slope of surface asperities, peak to valley height)Tomato pulp[170]
Near infrared (IR) techniqueHyperspectral imaging techniqueScattering and absorbance propertiesZucchini squash, tomatoes, cucumbers[171]
Resonant cavity methodImportant for modelling of Microwave dryingLoss factor, dielectric constantGarlic[172]
Thermistor-based methodTraditional methodThermal conductivityPotato[173]
CT meterEasy operateThermal Diffusivity, thermal conductivityOnion powder[174]
High-speed IR cameraRapid, non-destructiveThermal Diffusivity, thermal conductivityOnion[175]
Cereal ProductNumerical methods (NM)Better insight to predict anomalies that are difficult to predict using analytical approaches since it can only answer a few (2 to 3) unknown variables, whereas NM can do much more.The grain-to-wall friction coefficient, internal friction angle, specific weightSilo design[176]
Triaxial test, uniaxial compression test Modulus of elasticityCereal grain[177]
Acoustic methodEstimation of acoustic shear waveModulus of elasticityCereal grain[178]
Computed tomography (CT), ultrasound, electrical tomography (ET), MRINon-destructive techniquePerimeter, Elongation, Area, compactness, maximum width, maximum length,Barley, rice[179]
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM), confocal laser scanning microscopyStereospecific vision, higher magnification and resolutionMicrostructureRice, wheat[180]
Manometric, gravimetic, hygrometricManual process, frequent calibration is required, not work properly at frost pointEquilibrium moisture content, moisture sorption isotherms (MSI)Rice, grain, barley[181]
Dynamic vapour sorptionGravimetric technique, water vapour and organic solvent can be usedEquilibrium moisture contentMushroom[182]
Gravimetric methodTime consuming, the ion to be investigated should be fully precipitated. It must be a pure chemical that forms the precipitate. Filtration of the precipitate should be simple. The precipitate should have a low solubility and a high purity.Water diffusivityCereal grain[183,184]
MRI, Diffusion-weighted imagingNoninvasiveWater diffusivityCereal grain[185]
Farinograph, mixographTorque measurement, mixing propertyDevelopment time, Water absorption, Degree of softening, StabilityDough
ConsistographPressure measurement, mixing propertyStabilityDough
ExtensigraphUniaxial resistance to extension, Deformation BehaviorEnergy, extensibility ratio, tenacityDough
AlveographBiaxial resistance to extension, Deformation BehaviorExtensibility Ratio, Work of deformation Tenacity,Dough
Amylograph, Viscograph, Falling number, Rapid Visco-analyser, MixolabApparent viscosity, Pasting PropertiesGelatinization properties, Amilase activityDough
Continuous progressive compressionAt a constant amplitude of vibration, the sample was gradually compressed. On the compression curve, the compression force at the instant when the plunger distorted the grain was continually recorded.Hardness, stickinessRice, wheat, noodles and bread[186,187]
Jet impingement, microwave-jet impingement, microwave-infrared, SEM, liquid extrusion porosimetry, volume displacement, pycnometry Fraction of closed, total porosity, pore size distributions, blind and flow-through poresBread[188]
Meat, Fish and PoultrySurface electromyographyRecording of electrical signalMuscle fiber composition and diameterLamb, pig[189]
Image analysis, video image analysisNon-invasiveColour, curvature, angle, volume, linear measurements, marblingBeef[190,191]
UltrasoundNon-invasiveMarbling, longissimus muscleBeef[192]
Spectrophotocolorimeter, colorimeterColor Reflectance, for external colourLightness, redness, yellowness, chroma, hueBeef[193]
Optic probesFor internal colourLightness, redness, yellowness, chroma, hueBeef[194]
Visible and near-infrared spectroscopyNon-destructiveTendernessBeef[195]
Bioelectrical impedance analysis, electrical conductivity, magnetic inductance technologyNon-destructiveFat and lean contentLamb[196]
X-ray CTLower cost alternativeAverage density and area [197]
Warner-Bratzler shear force (cooked meat), compression test (raw meat), Texture AnalyzerInvasive methodRheological propertiesBeef[198]
BeefcamSimplified, useful in commercial applicationTendernessBeef[199]
Optical reflectanceMeasurement of physical characteristicsTendernessBeef[200]
Bite tests, penetrometry, tensile testInvasive methodTendernessBeef[201]
Digital image analysisNon-invasive methodSurface texture, Colour, marblingBeef[202]
X-ray microtomographyNon-invasive methodIntramuscular fatBeef[107]
Hyperspectral imagingNon-invasive methodColour, marbling, drip lossPork[203]
ViscometerFluid friction measurementViscosityLow-fat meat batters[204]
Finite element methodComputer simulation modelThermal conductivityMeat emulsion[205]
Image analysisNon-invasive methodVisual appearance, taste, textureHam[206]
Lacunarity analysis, variogramNon-invasive methodFat-connective tissue, poresHam[206]
NIR spectroscopyProvide results closer to true quantitative value and fast methodBrightness, oilinessIberian pig fat[207]
Differential scanning calorimetryNon-invasive and fast methodMelting properties, thermal behaviourDry cured ham[208]
Dairy productStatic light scattering (Malvern Mastersizer)Measurement of refractive indexParticle sizeMilk powder[209]
Powder tester Cohesion, Compressibility, Packed, and Bulk densities, angle of spatula, angle of reposeMilk powder[210]
Micromeritis pycnometerMeasured by the change in gas pressureDensity and volumeMilk powder[211]
Shear cell techniqueTraditional methodWall friction, internal friction, flow functionMilk powder[212]
Annular shear cell Effective angle of internal friction, flow functionMilk powder[209]
Angle of reposeStatic measure of relative flowabilityFlow functionMilk powder[213]
Pneumatic techniquesDirect methodCohesiveness, adhesiveness, sticky-point temperatureMilk powder[214]
Propeller-driven methodSimple, easy to useSticky-point temperatureMilk powder[215]
Ampule methodSimple, easy to useSurface caking temperatureMilk powder[216]
Unconfined yield testSimple, easy to useCohesivenessMilk powder[217]
Viscometer techniqueProvide results closer to true quantitative value and simpleStickiness, torqueMilk powder[215]
Force–displacement cake strength determinationEasy to useCaking strengthMilk powder[209]
Particle-gun methodVenturi funnel arrangementStickinessMilk powder[218]
Fluidized bed rigEasy to useSticky-pointMilk powder[219]
Cyclone testRotary motion generationStickinessMilk powder[220]
Thermal mechanical compression testThermal compression testGlass–rubber transitionMilk powder[214]
RheometerRheological techniqueGlass–rubber transitionMilk powder[221]
Static and dynamic wetting testsEasy to useWettabilityMilk powder[213]
Rehydration method, NMR relaxometrySimple, easy to useSolubility indexMilk powder[210]
Confocal scanning laser microscopy, SEM, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopyStereospecific vision, higher magnification and resolutionMicrostructureMilk powder
Melting thermogramEasy to useMelting behaviourButter[222]
NmrOn-line phase transition monitoringPhase transition temperatureCream[223]
Ultrasonic velocimetry, pulsed NMR, ultrasonic spectrometryOnline crystallization process monitoringSolid fat contentAnhydrous milk fat[120]
Penetrometry testEasy to useTextural property, AdhesivenessButter[222]
Texture analyzer with a rigEasy to useSpreadabilityButter[224]
Parallel plate rheometer, scraper-rheometerEasy to useViscoelasticityButter[222]
X-ray diffractionNon-invasive methodCrystallinityButter[225]
Brookfield viscosity [226]
DrainageSpontaneous, easy to useWater-holding capacityButter[226]
Oscillatory rheometry, viscosity, turbidity, dynamic light scattering, thromboelastography, electrical conductivity, vibrational viscometry, thermal conductivity near-infrared spectroscopy, refractometry, diffusing wave spectroscopy, microscopy, electroacoustics, fluorescence spectroscopy and low- and high-frequency ultrasoundRapidCurd setting, textural propertyCheese[227]
Bending test, Puncture, wire cutting test, dynamic and transient oscillation, uniaxial compression, cone penetration, torsionRapidSpringiness, hardness, cohesiveness, adhesivenessCheese[209]
Centrifugation, gravity lossHigher variability between resultsWater retention capacityCheese[228]
Cryo SEM, fluorescence microscopyStereospecific vision, higher magnification and resolutionMicrostructureIce-cream[229]

12. Conclusions

Mainly traditional/conventional and some novel analysis techniques have been considered here. The conventional methods are easy to implement and are cost effective, and the instruments are easily available. Thus, they are widely acceptable in industry. Conventional analysis methods applied to examine the physical properties of food material are associated with several disadvantages, such as their destructive nature, long process time, and laborious nature. To mitigate these limitations, it is extremely important to use novel technologies like MRI, NMR, UDV, acoustic methods, CT, and sensor-based methodologies. Several emerging techniques have been employed to characterize the physical properties of food materials. It has been observed that not only are they non-destructive in nature, but the results are also closer to the true quantitative values. Although several emerging techniques currently in use are discussed in this work, the replacement conventional methods with novel techniques must be developed at a faster rate.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.S., M.S. and K.K.; methodology, T.S., M.S., K.K., M.R. and M.K.; formal analysis, T.S., M.S. and K.K.; investigation T.S., M.S., K.K., S.P. (Siddhartha Pati), L.T., M.T. and N.K.; writing—original draft preparation, T.S., M.S., K.K., S.P. (Svetlana Panasenko), S.A. and L.G.; writing—review and editing, T.S., M.S., K.K., F.M., I.N., A.K., J.M.L., M.A.S., M.R. and M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data are presented within the article.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to GAIN (Axencia Galega de Innovación) for supporting this research (Grant Number IN607A2019/01). Thanks to Principal-in-charge and staff members of Malda Polytechnic for their support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Figura, L.O.; Teixeira, A.A. Food Physics: Physical Properties—Measurement and Applications; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2010; p. 550. [Google Scholar]
  2. Berk, Z. Physical properties of food materials. Food Process Eng. Technol. 2018, 8, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Joardder, M.U.H.; Karim, A.; Kumar, C.; Brown, R.J. Food as a Material; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2016; pp. 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bhuyan, M. Measurement and Control in Food Processing; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2006; pp. 1–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gebremariam, M.K.; Vaqué-Crusellas, C.; Andersen, L.F.; Stok, F.M.; Stelmach-Mardas, M.; Brug, J.; Lien, N. Measurement of availability and accessibility of food among youth: A systematic review of methodological studies. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017, 14, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Maxwell, A.L.; Gardiner, E.; Loxton, N.J. Investigating the relationship between reward sensitivity, impulsivity, and food addiction: A systematic review. Eur. Eat. Disord. Rev. 2020, 28, 368–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Sarkar, T.; Salauddin, M.; Pati, S.; Chakraborty, R.; Shariati, M.A.; Rebezov, M.; Ermolaev, V.; Mirgorodskaya, M.; Pateiro, M.; Lorenzo, J.M. The Fuzzy Cognitive Map–Based Shelf-life Modelling for Food Storage. Food Anal. Methods 2021, 14, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Steele, D.J.; McFarlane, I. Process measurement in the food industry—1. Meas. Control 1981, 14, 24–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Soltanali, H.; Khojastehpour, M.; Torres Farinha, J. Measuring the production performance indicators for food processing industry. Measurement 2021, 173, 108394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Perrot, N.; Trelea, I.C.; Baudrit, C.; Trystram, G.; Bourgine, P. Modelling and analysis of complex food systems: State of the art and new trends. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 22, 304–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Joardder, M.U.H.; Kumar, C.; Karim, M.A. Food structure: Its formation and relationships with other properties. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 57, 1190–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Toth, A.; Rendall, S.; Reitsma, F. Resilient food systems: A qualitative tool for measuring food resilience. Urban Ecosyst. 2016, 19, 19–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Guiné, R.P.F.; Florença, S.G.; Barroca, M.J.; Anjos, O. The Link between the Consumer and the Innovations in Food Product Development. Foods 2020, 9, 1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Nesvadba, P.; Houška, M.; Wolf, W.; Gekas, V.; Jarvis, D.; Sadd, P.A.; Johns, A.I. Database of physical properties of agro-food materials. J. Food Eng. 2004, 61, 497–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Tunick, M.H.; Onwulata, C.I. Physical Methods in Food Analysis; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  16. Joslyn, M. Methods in Food Analysis: Physical, Chemical, and Instrumental Methods of Analysis; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]
  17. Rajput, H.; Rehal, J.; Goswami, D.; Mandge, H.M. Methods for Food Analysis and Quality Control. In State-of-the-Art Technologies in Food Science: Human Health, Emerging Issues and Specialty Topics; Apple Academic Press: Palm Bay, FL, USA, 2019; pp. 299–346. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bélanger, J.M.R.; Bissonnette, M.C.; Jocelyn Paré, J.R. Chapter 1 Chromatography: Principles and applications. In Instrumental Methods in Food Analysis; Paré, J.R.J., Bélanger, J.M.R., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1997; Volume 18, pp. 1–35. ISBN 978-0-444-81868-3. [Google Scholar]
  19. García-Cañas, V.; Simó, C.; Herrero, M.; Ibáñez, E.; Cifuentes, A. Present and Future Challenges in Food Analysis: Foodomics. Anal. Chem. 2012, 84, 10150–10159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Cifuentes, A. Food Analysis: Present, Future, and Foodomics. ISRN Anal. Chem. 2012, 2012, 801607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Dzantiev, B.B.; Byzova, N.A.; Urusov, A.E.; Zherdev, A.V. Immunochromatographic methods in food analysis. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2014, 55, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Majid, I.; Nayik, G.A.; Nanda, V. Ultrasonication and food technology: A review. Cogent Food Agric. 2015, 1, 1071022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yildiz, F.; Özdemir, A.T.; Uluışık, S. Evaluation Performance of Ultrasonic Testing on Fruit Quality Determination. J. Food Qual. 2019, 2019, 6810865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mizrach, A. Assessing plum fruit quality attributes with an ultrasonic method. Food Res. Int. 2004, 37, 627–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mizrach, A. Ultrasonic technology for quality evaluation of fresh fruit and vegetables in pre- and postharvest processes. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2008, 48, 315–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ross, K.A.; Pyrak-Nolte, L.J.; Campanella, O.H. The use of ultrasound and shear oscillatory tests to characterize the effect of mixing time on the rheological properties of dough. Food Res. Int. 2004, 37, 567–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Li, C.; Zheng, Y.; Kwabena, A. Prediction of IMF Percentage of Live Cattle by Using Ultrasound Technologies with High Accuracies. In Proceedings of the 2009 WASE International Conference on Information Engineering, Taiyuan, China, 10–11 July 2009; Volume 2, pp. 474–478. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hæggström, E.; Luukkala, M. Ultrasound detection and identification of foreign bodies in food products. Food Control 2001, 12, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Awad, T.S.; Moharram, H.A.; Shaltout, O.E.; Asker, D.; Youssef, M.M. Applications of ultrasound in analysis, processing and quality control of food: A review. Food Res. Int. 2012, 48, 410–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gallo, M.; Ferrara, L.; Naviglio, D. Application of Ultrasound in Food Science and Technology: A Perspective. Foods 2018, 7, 164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Ogawa, Y.; Matsuura, M.; Yamamoto, N. Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio Changes in Japanese Radish and Carrot Root Tissues during Boiling. Int. J. Food Prop. 2015, 18, 1006–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fauzi, N.A.; Farid, M.M.; Silva, F. An insight on the relationship between food compressibility and microbial inactivation during high pressure processing. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 54, 802–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Torrico, D.D.; Hutchings, S.C.; Ha, M.; Bittner, E.P.; Fuentes, S.; Warner, R.D.; Dunshea, F.R. Novel techniques to understand consumer responses towards food products: A review with a focus on meat. Meat Sci. 2018, 144, 30–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ojolo, J.S.; Eweina, B.A. Predicting cashew nut cracking using hertz theory of contact stress. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2019, 18, 157–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Li, Z.; Miao, F.; Andrews, J. Mechanical Models of Compression and Impact on Fresh Fruits. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2017, 16, 1296–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Felföldi, J.; Kertész, I.; Nagy, D.; Zsom-Muha, V. Non-destructive impact method for quality assessment of horticultural products. Prog. Agric. Eng. Sci. 2017, 13, 69–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Khodabakhshian, R.; Hassani, M. The study and comparison of elastic modulus of pineapple fruit in macroscopic and microscopic modes. Microsc. Res. Tech. 2021, 84, 1348–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Walkowiak-Tomczak, D.; Idaszewska, N.; Łysiak, G.P.; Bieńczak, K. The Effect of Mechanical Vibration during Transport under Model Conditions on the Shelf-Life, Quality and Physico-Chemical Parameters of Four Apple Cultivars. Agronomy 2021, 11, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Eissa, A.H.A.; Albaloushi, N.S.; Azam, M.M. Vibration analysis influence during crisis transport of the quality of fresh fruit on food security. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. 2013, 15, 181–190. [Google Scholar]
  40. Wu, D.; Sun, D.-W.; He, Y. Novel non-invasive distribution measurement of texture profile analysis (TPA) in salmon fillet by using visible and near infrared hyperspectral imaging. Food Chem. 2014, 145, 417–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Breene, W.M. Application of texture profile analysis to instrumental food texture evaluation. J. Texture Stud. 1975, 6, 53–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kwon, B.S.; Lee, J.H.; Lee, K.Y.; Kim, S.J. Sensory evaluation and texture of commercial dairy and vegan types of Cheddar cheese. Korean J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 53, 585–592. [Google Scholar]
  43. Zheng, Y.; Liu, Z.; Mo, B. Texture Profile Analysis of Sliced Cheese in relation to Chemical Composition and Storage Temperature. J. Chem. 2016, 2016, 8690380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Zdunek, A.; Cybulska, J. Relation of biospeckle activity with quality attributes of apples. Sensors 2011, 11, 6317–6327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rosenthal, A.J. Texture profile analysis—How important are the parameters? J. Texture Stud. 2010, 41, 672–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Peleg, M. The instrumental texture profile analysis revisited. J. Texture Stud. 2019, 50, 362–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Krol, K.; Niderla, K.; Dmowski, A.; Cichorzewska, M. Industrial Tomography Platform for Diagnostics and Control of the Crystallization Process. Eur. Res. Stud. J. 2021, XXIV, 587–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cullen, P.J.; Duffy, A.P.; O’Donnell, C.P.; O’Callaghan, D.J. Process viscometry for the food industry. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2000, 11, 451–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Choi, Y.J.; Mccarthy, K.L.; Mccarthy, M.J. Tomographic Techniques for Measuring Fluid Flow Properties. J. Food Sci. 2002, 67, 2718–2724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Shin, S.; Keum, D.-Y. Viscosity measurement of non-Newtonian fluid foods with a mass-detecting capillary viscometer. J. Food Eng. 2003, 58, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tan, C.; Murai, Y.; Liu, W.; Tasaka, Y.; Dong, F.; Takeda, Y. Ultrasonic Doppler Technique for Application to Multiphase Flows: A Review. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 2021, 144, 103811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Qin, J.; Kim, M.S.; Chao, K.; Chan, D.E.; Delwiche, S.R.; Cho, B.-K. Line-Scan Hyperspectral Imaging Techniques for Food Safety and Quality Applications. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Saggin, R.; Coupland, J.N. Oil viscosity measurement by ultrasonic reflectance. JAOCS J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2001, 78, 509–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hauptmann, P.; Hoppe, N.; Püttmer, A. Application of ultrasonic sensors in the process industry. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2002, 13, R73–R83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Fathizadeh, Z.; Aboonajmi, M.; Hassan-Beygi, S.R. Nondestructive methods for determining the firmness of apple fruit flesh. Inf. Process. Agric. 2021, 8, 515–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Li, B.; Lecourt, J.; Bishop, G. Advances in Non-Destructive Early Assessment of Fruit Ripeness towards Defining Optimal Time of Harvest and Yield Prediction—A Review. Plants 2018, 7, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Vursavus, K.K.; Yurtlu, Y.B.; Diezma-Iglesias, B.; Lleo-Garcia, L.; Ruiz-Altisent, M. Classification of the firmness of peaches by sensor fusion. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2015, 8, 104–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kuswandi, B.; Siddiqui, M.W. Sensor-Based Quality Assessment Systems for Fruits and Vegetables; Apple Academic Press: Palm Bay, FL, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  59. García-Ramos, F.J.; Valero, C.; Homer, I.; Ortiz-Cañavate, J.; Ruiz-Altisent, M. Non-destructive fruit firmness sensors: A review. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2005, 3, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Steinmetz, V.; Crochon, M.; Bellon Maurel, V.; Garcia Fernandez, J.L.; Barreiro Elorza, P.; Verstreken, L. Sensors for Fruit Firmness Assessment: Comparison and Fusion. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1996, 64, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Pandey, N.; Pal, D.; Saha, D.; Ganguly, S. Vibration-based biomimetic odor classification. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 11389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Abbaszadeh, R.; Rajabipour, A.; Delshad, M.; Mahjub, M.; Ahmadi, H.; Laguë, C. Application of vibration response for the nondestructive ripeness evaluation of watermelons. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2011, 5, 920–925. [Google Scholar]
  63. Oveisi, Z.; Minaei, S.; Rafiee, S.; Eyvani, A.; Borghei, A. Application of vibration response technique for the firmness evaluation of pear fruit during storage. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 51, 3261–3268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Zhu, H.; Chu, B.; Fan, Y.; Tao, X.; Yin, W.; He, Y. Hyperspectral Imaging for Predicting the Internal Quality of Kiwifruits Based on Variable Selection Algorithms and Chemometric Models. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 7845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Mukherjee, A.; Chatterjee, K.; Sarkar, T. Entropy-Aided Assessment of Amla ( Emblica officinalis ) Quality Using Principal Component Analysis. Biointerface Res. Appl. Chem. 2022, 12, 2162–2170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wang, X. 7—Near-infrared spectroscopy for food quality evaluation. In Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition; Zhong, J., Wang, X., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2019; pp. 105–118. ISBN 978-0-12-814217-2. [Google Scholar]
  67. Huang, Y.; Lu, R.; Chen, K. Prediction of firmness parameters of tomatoes by portable visible and near-infrared spectroscopy. J. Food Eng. 2018, 222, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mishra, P.; Woltering, E.; El Harchioui, N. Improved prediction of ‘Kent’ mango firmness during ripening by near-infrared spectroscopy supported by interval partial least square regression. Infrared Phys. Technol. 2020, 110, 103459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kim, K.B.; Jung, H.M.; Kim, M.S.; Kim, G.S. Evaluation of fruit firmness by ultrasonic measurement. Key Eng. Mater. 2004, 270–273, 1049–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Alayed, M.; Deen, M.J. Time-Resolved Diffuse Optical Spectroscopy and Imaging Using Solid-State Detectors: Characteristics, Present Status, and Research Challenges. Sensors 2017, 17, 2115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Cubeddu, R.; D’Andrea, C.; Pifferi, A.; Taroni, P.; Torricelli, A.; Valentini, G.; Dover, C.; Johnson, D.; Ruiz-Altisent, M.; Valero, C. Nondestructive quantification of chemical and physical properties of fruits by time-resolved reflectance spectroscopy in the wavelength range 650-1000 nm. Appl. Opt. 2001, 40, 538–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. Hatzakis, E. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Spectroscopy in Food Science: A Comprehensive Review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2019, 18, 189–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Ebrahimnejad, H.; Ebrahimnejad, H.; Salajegheh, A.; Barghi, H. Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Food Quality Control: A Review. J. Biomed. Phys. Eng. 2018, 8, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  74. Bizzani, M.; Flores, D.W.M.; Colnago, L.A.; Ferreira, M.D. Non-invasive spectroscopic methods to estimate orange firmness, peel thickness, and total pectin content. Microchem. J. 2017, 133, 168–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Arendse, E.; Fawole, O.A.; Magwaza, L.S.; Opara, U.L. Non-destructive prediction of internal and external quality attributes of fruit with thick rind: A review. J. Food Eng. 2018, 217, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Tunick, M.H.; Onwulata, C.I.; Thomas, A.E.; Phillips, J.G.; Mukhopadhyay, S.; Sheen, S.; Liu, C.-K.; Latona, N.; Pimentel, M.R.; Cooke, P.H. Critical Evaluation of Crispy and Crunchy Textures: A Review. Int. J. Food Prop. 2013, 16, 949–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Alonzo-Macías, M.; Montejano-Gaitán, G.; Allaf, K. Impact of Drying Processes on Strawberry (Fragaria var. Camarosa) Texture: Identification of Crispy and Crunchy Features by Instrumental Measurement. J. Texture Stud. 2014, 45, 246–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Marzec, A.; Kowalska, H.; Kowalska, J.; Domian, E.; Lenart, A. Influence of Pear Variety and Drying Methods on the Quality of Dried Fruit. Molecules 2020, 25, 5146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Arimi, J.M.; Duggan, E.; O’Sullivan, M.; Lyng, J.G.; O’Riordan, E.D. Effect of water activity on the crispiness of a biscuit (Crackerbread): Mechanical and acoustic evaluation. Food Res. Int. 2010, 43, 1650–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Çarşanba, E.; Duerrschmid, K.; Schleining, G. Assessment of acoustic-mechanical measurements for crispness of wafer products. J. Food Eng. 2018, 229, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Lewicki, P.P.; Jakubczyk, E.; Marzec, A.; Cabral, C. Effect of water activity on mechanical properties of dry cereal product. Acta Agrophysica 2006, 4, 381–391. [Google Scholar]
  82. Błońska, A.; Marzec, A.; Błaszczyk, A. Instrumental Evaluation of Acoustic and Mechanical Texture Properties of Short-Dough Biscuits with Different Content of Fat and Inulin. J. Texture Stud. 2014, 45, 226–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Yoshioka, Y.; Horie, H.; Sugiyama, M.; Sakata, Y. Quantifying cucumber fruit crispness by mechanical measurement. Breed. Sci. 2009, 59, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Saeleaw, M.; Schleining, G. A review: Crispness in dry foods and quality measurements based on acoustic–mechanical destructive techniques. J. Food Eng. 2011, 105, 387–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Zdunek, A.; Cybulska, J.; Konopacka, D.; Rutkowski, K. Evaluation of apple texture with contact acoustic emission detector: A study on performance of calibration models. J. Food Eng. 2011, 106, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Povey, M.J.W.; Harden, C.A. An application of the ultrasonic pulse echo technique to the measurement of crispness of biscuits. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 1981, 16, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Zadeike, D.; Jukonyte, R.; Juodeikiene, G.; Bartkiene, E.; Valatkeviciene, Z. Comparative study of ciabatta crust crispness through acoustic and mechanical methods: Effects of wheat malt and protease on dough rheology and crust crispness retention during storage. LWT 2018, 89, 110–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Antonova, I. Determination of Crispness in Breaded Fried Chicken Nuggets Using Ultrasonic Technique. Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 2001. Available online: https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/36456 (accessed on 1 November 2021).
  89. Chaunier, L.; Courcoux, P.; Della Valle, G.; Lourdin, D. Physical and sensory evaluation of cornflakes crispness. J. Texture Stud. 2005, 36, 93–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Zdunek, A.; Bednarczyk, J. Eeefect of mannitol treatment on ultrasound emission during texture profile analysis of potato and apple tissue. J. Texture Stud. 2006, 37, 339–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zdunek, A.; Konopacka, D.; Jesionkowska, K. Crispness and crunchiness judgment of apples based on contact acoustic emmision. J. Texture Stud. 2010, 41, 75–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Dias-Faceto, L.S.; Salvador, A.; Conti-Silva, A.C. Acoustic settings combination as a sensory crispness indicator of dry crispy food. J. Texture Stud. 2020, 51, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Arefi, A.; Moghaddam, P.A.; Mollazade, K.; Hassanpour, A.; Valero, C.; Gowen, A. Mealiness Detection in Agricultural Crops: Destructive and Nondestructive Tests: A Review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2015, 14, 657–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Armstrong, C.M.; Gehring, A.G.; Paoli, G.C.; Chen, C.-Y.; He, Y.; Capobianco, J.A. Impacts of Clarification Techniques on Sample Constituents and Pathogen Retention. Foods 2019, 8, 636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Delwiche, M.; Sarig, Y. A probe impact sensor for fruit firmness measurement. Trans. ASAE 1991, 34, 187–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ozer, N.; Engel, A.B.; Simon, E. A multiple impact approach for non-destructive measurement of fruit firmness and maturity. Trans. ASAE 1998, 41, 871–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Różańska, A.; Dymerski, T.; Namieśnik, J. Novel analytical method for detection of orange juice adulteration based on ultra-fast gas chromatography. Monatshefte fur Chemie 2018, 149, 1615–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  98. Crisosto, C.H.; Labavitch, J.M. Developing a quantitative method to evaluate peach (Prunus persica) flesh mealiness. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2002, 25, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Goto-Inoue, N.; Yoshimura, Y.; Zaima, N. 12—Applications of imaging techniques in food science. In Chemical Analysis of Food; Pico, Y., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 553–575. ISBN 978-0-12-813266-1. [Google Scholar]
  100. Sarkar, M.; Gupta, N.; Assaad, M. Nondestructive Food Quality Monitoring Using Phase Information in Time-Resolved Reflectance Spectroscopy. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2020, 69, 7787–7795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Rizzolo, A.; Vanoli, M.; Spinelli, L.; Torricelli, A. Sensory characteristics, quality and optical properties measured by time-resolved reflectance spectroscopy in stored apples. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2010, 58, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. De Smedt, V.; Barreiro, P.; Verlinden, B.E.; Veraverbeke, E.A.; De Baerdemaeker, J.; Nicolaï, B.M. A mathematical model for the development of mealiness in apples. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2002, 25, 273–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Moshou, D.; Wahlen, S.; Strasser, R.; Schenk, A.; De Baerdemaeker, J.; Ramon, H. Chlorophyll Fluorescence as a Tool for Online Quality Sorting of Apples. Biosyst. Eng. 2005, 91, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Kalaji, H.M.; Bąba, W.; Gediga, K.; Goltsev, V.; Samborska, I.A.; Cetner, M.D.; Dimitrova, S.; Piszcz, U.; Bielecki, K.; Karmowska, K.; et al. Chlorophyll fluorescence as a tool for nutrient status identification in rapeseed plants. Photosynth. Res. 2018, 136, 329–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  105. Song, J.; Deng, W.; Beaudry, R.M.; Armstrong, P.R. Changes in chlorophyll fluorescence of apple fruit during maturation, ripening, and senescence. HortScience 1997, 32, 891–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Du, Z.; Hu, Y.; Ali Buttar, N.; Mahmood, A. X-ray computed tomography for quality inspection of agricultural products: A review. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 7, 3146–3160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Frisullo, P.; Marino, R.; Laverse, J.; Albenzio, M.; Del Nobile, M. Assessment of intramuscular fat level and distribution in beef muscles using X-ray microcomputed tomography. Meat Sci. 2010, 85, 250–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Schoeman, L.; Williams, P.; du Plessis, A.; Manley, M. X-ray micro-computed tomography (μCT) for non-destructive characterisation of food microstructure. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 47, 10–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Antequera, T.; Caballero, D.; Grassi, S.; Uttaro, B.; Perez-Palacios, T. Evaluation of fresh meat quality by Hyperspectral Imaging (HSI), Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI): A review. Meat Sci. 2021, 172, 108340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Brix, O.; Apablaza, P.; Baker, A.; Taxt, T.; Grüner, R. Chemical shift based MR imaging and gas chromatography for quantification and localization of fat in Atlantic mackerel. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 2009, 376, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. McCarthy, M.J.; McCarthy, K.L. Applications of magnetic resonance imaging to food research. Magn. Reson. Imaging 1996, 14, 799–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Al-Muhtaseb, A.H.; McMinn, W.A.M.; Magee, T.R.A. Water sorption isotherms of starch powders: Part 1: Mathematical description of experimental data. J. Food Eng. 2004, 61, 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Peng, G.; Chen, X.; Wu, W.; Jiang, X. Modeling of water sorption isotherm for corn starch. J. Food Eng. 2007, 80, 562–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Ziegler, G.R.; Mongia, G.; Hollender, R. The role of particle size distribution of suspended solids in defining the sensory properties of milk chocolate. Int. J. Food Prop. 2007, 4, 353–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Attaie, H.; Breitschuh, B.; Braun, P.; Windhab, E.J. The functionality of milk powder and its relationship to chocolate mass processing, in particular the effect of milk powder manufacturing and composition on the physical properties of chocolate masses. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2003, 38, 325–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Lyu, F.; Thomas, M.; Hendriks, W.H.; van der Poel, A.F.B. Size reduction in feed technology and methods for determining, expressing and predicting particle size: A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2020, 261, 114347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Cuq, B.; Gonçalves, F.; Mas, J.F.; Vareille, L.; Abecassis, J. Effects of moisture content and temperature of spaghetti on their mechanical properties. J. Food Eng. 2003, 59, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Juszczak, L.; Witczak, M.; Fortuna, T.; Banyś, A. Rheological properties of commercial mustards. J. Food Eng. 2004, 63, 209–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Resch, J.J.; Daubert, C.R. Rheological and physicochemical properties of derivatized whey protein concentrate powders. Int. J. Food Prop. 2007, 5, 419–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Gujral, H.S.; Sharma, A.; Singh, N. Effect of hydrocolloids, storage temperature, and duration on the consistency of tomato ketchup. Int. J. Food Prop. 2007, 5, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Haley, T.A.; Smith, R.S. Evaluation of in-line absorption photometry to predict consistency of concentrated tomato products. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2003, 36, 159–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Ahmed, J.; Ramaswamy, H.S. Dynamic rheology and thermal transitions in meat-based strained baby foods. J. Food Eng. 2007, 78, 1274–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Chang, Y.; Hartel, R.W. Stability of air cells in ice cream during hardening and storage. J. Food Eng. 2002, 55, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Funebo, T.; Ahrné, L.; Prothon, F.; Kidman, S.; Langton, M.; Skjöldebrand, C. Microwave and convective dehydration of ethanol treated and frozen apple—Physical properties and drying kinetics. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2002, 37, 603–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Ferrando, M.; Spiess, W.E.L. Mass transfer in strawberry tissue during osmotic treatment I: Microstructural changes. J. Food Sci. 2003, 68, 1347–1355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Hong, S.I.; Krochta, J.M. Oxygen barrier performance of whey-protein-coated plastic films as affected by temperature, relative humidity, base film and protein type. J. Food Eng. 2006, 77, 739–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Alvi, S.A.A. Quality evaluation of goat meat by an electrical method. J. Agric. Eng. 1989, 26, 59–65. [Google Scholar]
  128. Cogné, C.; Andrieu, J.; Laurent, P.; Besson, A.; Nocquet, J. Experimental data and modelling of thermal properties of ice creams. J. Food Eng. 2003, 58, 331–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Maroulis, Z.B.; Saravacos, G.D.; Krokida, M.K.; Panagiotou, N.M. Thermal conductivity prediction for foodstuffs: Effect of moisture content and temperature. Int. J. Food Prop. 2007, 5, 231–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Marschoun, L.T.; Muthukumarappan, K.; Gunasekaran, S. Thermal properties of cheddar cheese: Experimental and modeling. Int. J. Food Prop. 2006, 4, 383–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Olafsdottir, G.; Nesvadba, P.; Di Natale, C.; Careche, M.; Oehlenschläger, J.; Tryggvadóttir, S.V.; Schubring, R.; Kroeger, M.; Heia, K.; Esaiassen, M.; et al. Multisensor for fish quality determination. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2004, 15, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Ryder, J.; Ababouch, L. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. In Proceedings of the Fifth World Fish Inspection and Quality Control Congress, The Hague, The Netherlands, 20–22 October 2003; p. 162. [Google Scholar]
  133. Bhosale, A.A.; Sundaram, K.K. Firmness Prediction of the Apple Using Capacitance Measurement. Procedia Technol. 2014, 12, 163–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  134. Evans, S.D.; Nott, K.P.; Kshirsagar, A.A.; Hall, L.D. The effect of freezing and thawing on the magnetic resonance imaging parameters of water in beef, lamb and pork meat. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 1998, 33, 317–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Huang, Y.; Cavinato, A.G.; Tang, J.; Swanson, B.G.; Lin, M.; Rasco, B.A. Characterization of sol–gel transitions of food hydrocolloids with near infra-red spectroscopy. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2007, 40, 1018–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Jaillais, B.; Morrin, V.; Downey, G. Image processing of outer-product matrices—A new way to classify samples: Examples using visible/NIR/MIR spectral data. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2007, 86, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Esteban-Díez, I.; González-Sáiz, J.; Sáenz-González, C.; Pizarro, C. Coffee varietal differentiation based on near infrared spectroscopy. Talanta 2007, 71, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Chen, B.; Fu, X.G.; Lu, D.L. Improvement of predicting precision of oil content in instant noodles by using wavelet transforms to treat near-infrared spectroscopy. J. Food Eng. 2002, 53, 373–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Singh, S. Refractive Index Measurement and its Applications. Phys. Scr. 2002, 65, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Mukherjee, A.; Sarkar, T.; Chatterjee, K. Freshness Assessment of Indian Gooseberry (Phyllanthus emblica) Using Probabilistic Neural Network. J. Biosyst. Eng. 2021, 46, 399–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Sarkar, T.; Mukherjee, A.; Chatterjee, K. Supervised Learning Aided Multiple Feature Analysis for Freshness Class Detection of Indian Gooseberry (Phyllanthus emblica). J. Inst. Eng. Ser. A 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Sarkar, T.; Mukherjee, A.; Chatterjee, K.; Ermolaev, V.; Piotrovsky, D.; Vlasova, K.; Shariati, M.A.; Munekata, P.E.S.; Lorenzo, J.M. Edge Detection Aided Geometrical Shape Analysis of Indian Gooseberry (Phyllanthus emblica) for Freshness Classification. Food Anal. Methods 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Sarkar, T.; Mukherjee, A.; Chatterjee, K.; Shariati, M.; Rebezov, M.; Rodionova, S.; Smirnov, D.; Dominguez, R.; Lorenzo, J.M. Comparative Analysis of Statistical and Supervised Learning Models for Freshness Assessment of Oyster Mushrooms. Food Anal. Methods 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Iraguen, V.; Guesalaga, A.; Agosin, E. A portable non-destructive volume meter for wine grape clusters. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2006, 17, N92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Gall, H.; Muir, A.; Fleming, J.; Pohlmann, R.; Göcke, L.; Hossack, W. A ring sensor system for the determination of volume and axis measurements of irregular objects. Meas. Sci. Technol. 1998, 9, 1809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Gall, H. A ring sensor system using a modified polar coordinate system to describe the shape of irregular objects. MeScT 1997, 8, 1228–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Moreda, G.P.; Ortiz-Cañavate, J.; García-Ramos, F.J.; Homer, I.R.; Ruiz-Altisent, M. Optimal operating conditions for an optical ring sensor system to size fruits and vegetables. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2005, 21, 661–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Moreda, G. Design and Assessment of a System for On-Line Size Determination of Fruits and Vegetables, Using an Optical Ring Sensor; Ciudad Universitaria: Madrid, Spain, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  149. Hahn, F. PH—Postharvest Technology: Automatic Jalapeño Chilli Grading by Width. Biosyst. Eng. 2002, 83, 433–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Hryniewicz, M.; Sotome, I.; Anthonis, J.; Ramon, H.; De Baerdemaeker, J. 3D surface modeling with stereovision. Acta Hortic. 2005, 674, 561–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Lee, D.-J.; Xu, X.; Eifert, J.D.; Zhan, P. Area and volume measurements of objects with irregular shapes using multiple silhouettes. Opt. Eng. 2006, 45, 027202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Kanali, C.; Murase, H.; Honami, N. Three-dimensional shape recognition using a charge-simulation method to process primary image features. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1998, 70, 195–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Pan, Y.; Li, X.; Jia, X.; Zhao, Y.; Li, H.; Zhang, L. Storage temperature without fluctuation enhances shelf-life and improves postharvest quality of peach. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2019, 43, e13881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Alajaji, S.A.; El-Adawy, T.A. Nutritional composition of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) as affected by microwave cooking and other traditional cooking methods. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2006, 19, 806–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Mora, C.R.; Schimleck, L.R. Determination of specific gravity of green Pinus taeda samples by near infrared spectroscopy: Comparison of pre-processing methods using multivariate figures of merit. Wood Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 441–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Jaya, S.; Das, H. Glass Transition and Sticky Point Temperatures and Stability/Mobility Diagram of Fruit Powders. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2008, 2, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Bhadra, R.; Rosentrater, K.A.; Muthukumarappan, K. Measurement of Sticky Point Temperature of Coffee Powder with a Rheometer. Int. J. Food Prop. 2013, 16, 1071–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  158. Hashemi, N.; Milani, E.; Mortezavi, S.A.; Yazdi, F.T. Sticky Point Temperature as a Suitable Method in Evaluation of Shelf Life of Food Powders. Bull. Société R. Sci. Liège 2017, 86, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Rodríguez, R.; Jaramillo, S.; Heredia, A.; Guillén, R.; Jiménez, A.; Fernández-Bolaños, J. Mechanical properties of white and green asparagus: Changes related to modifications of cell wall components. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2004, 84, 1478–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. De Ketelaere, B.; Howarth, M.S.; Crezee, L.; Lammertyn, J.; Viaene, K.; Bulens, I.; De Baerdemaeker, J. Postharvest firmness changes as measured by acoustic and low-mass impact devices: A comparison of techniques. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2006, 41, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Sakurai, N.; Iwatani, S.I.; Terasaki, S.; Yamamoto, R. Texture evaluation of cucumber by a new acoustic vibration method. J. Jpn. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2005, 74, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  162. Hertog, M.L.A.T.M.; Ben-Arie, R.; Róth, E.; Nicolaï, B.M. Humidity and temperature effects on invasive and non-invasive firmness measures. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2004, 1, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Verlinden, B.E.; De Smedt, V.; Nicola, B.M. Evaluation of ultrasonic wave propagation to measure chilling injury in tomatoes. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2004, 32, 109–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Vasighi-Shojae, H.; Gholami-Parashkouhi, M.; Mohammadzamani, D.; Soheili, A. Ultrasonic based determination of apple quality as a nondestructive technology. Sens. Bio-Sens. Res. 2018, 21, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Charoensiddhi, S.; Anprung, P. Bioactive compounds and volatile compounds of Thai bael fruit (Aegle marmelos (L.) Correa) as a valuable source for functional food ingredients. Int. Food Res. J. 2008, 15, 287–295. [Google Scholar]
  166. Deell, J.R.; Toivonen, P.M.A. Chlorophyll Fluorescence as an Indicator of Physiological Changes in Cold-Stored Broccoli After Transfer to Room Temperature. J. Food Sci. 1999, 64, 501–503. [Google Scholar]
  167. Nicolaï, B.M.; Verlinden, B.E.; Lammertyn, J.; De Baerdemaeker, J. Texture assessment of perishable products. Acta Hortic. 2003, 600, 513–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Kohonen, T. The Self-Organizing Map. Proc. IEEE 1990, 78, 1464–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Montouto-Grña, M.; Fernández-Fernández, E.; Vaázquez-Odeériz, M.L.; Romero-Rodríguez, M.A. Development of a sensory profile for the specific denomination “Galician potato”. Food Qual. Prefer. 2002, 13, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Goula, A.M.; Karapantsios, T.D.; Adamopoulos, K.G. Characterization of Tomato Pulp Stickiness during Spray Drying using a Contact Probe Method. Dry. Technol. 2007, 25, 591–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Qin, J.; Lu, R. Measurement of the optical properties of fruits and vegetables using spatially resolved hyperspectral diffuse reflectance imaging technique. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2008, 49, 355–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Rakulini, R.; Kalaichelvi, S.; Prasad, S. A Review of Anti—Diarrheal Activity of Aegle marmelos. Orig. Res. Artic. Rakulini Kalaichelvi 2019, 7, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  173. van Gelder, M.F. A Thermistor Based Method for Measurement of Thermal Conductivity and Thermal Diffusivity of Moist Food Materials at High Temperatures. Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 1997. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/openview/0672c50df1ee96b7335c7ebdc9dc055c/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y (accessed on 1 November 2021).
  174. Kumar, S.; Pandey, A.K. Chemistry and Biological Activities of Flavonoids: An Overview. Sci. World J. 2013, 2013, 162750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  175. Morikawa, J.; Hashimoto, T. Thermal imaging of micro-structured polymers with high-speed infrared camera. Smart Nano-Micro Mater. Devices 2011, 8204, 82042R. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Moya, M.; Guaita, M.; Aguado, P.; Ayuga, F. Mechanical properties of granular agricultural materials, Part 2. Trans. ASABE 2006, 49, 479–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Molenda, M.; Stasiak, M. Determination of the elastic constants of cereal grains in a uniaxial compression test. Int. Agrophysics 2002, 16, 61–65. [Google Scholar]
  178. Stasiak, M.; Molenda, M.; Horabik, J. Determination of modulus of elasticity of cereals and rapeseeds using acoustic method. J. Food Eng. 2007, 82, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Zapotoczny, P.; Zielinska, M.; Nita, Z. Application of image analysis for the varietal classification of barley:. Morphological features. J. Cereal Sci. 2008, 48, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Dang, J.M.; Copeland, L. Studies of the fracture surface of rice grains using environmental scanning electron microscopy. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2004, 84, 707–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Samapundo, S.; Devlieghere, F.; De Meulenaer, B.; Atukwase, A.; Lamboni, Y.; Debevere, J.M. Sorption isotherms and isosteric heats of sorption of whole yellow dent corn. J. Food Eng. 2007, 79, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Argyropoulos, D.; Alex, R.; Müller, J. Equilibrium moisture contents of a medicinal herb (Melissa officinalis) and a medicinal mushroom (Lentinula edodes) determined by dynamic vapour sorption. Procedia Food Sci. 2011, 1, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  183. Picolli da Silva, L.; de Lourdes Santorio Ciocca, M. Total, insoluble and soluble dietary fiber values measured by enzymatic–gravimetric method in cereal grains. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2005, 18, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. McCleary, B.V.; De Vries, J.W.; Rader, J.I.; Cohen, G.; Prosky, L.; Mugford, D.C.; Champ, M.; Okuma, K. Determination of Total Dietary Fiber (CODEX Definition) by Enzymatic-Gravimetric Method and Liquid Chromatography: Collaborative Study. J. AOAC Int. 2010, 93, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  185. Gruwel, M.L.H.; Ghosh, P.K.; Latta, P.; Jayas, D.S. On the diffusion constant of water in wheat. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 59–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Nakamura, S.; Satoh, H.; Ohtsubo, K. Palatable and Bio-Functional Wheat/Rice Products Developed from Pre-Germinated Brown Rice of Super-Hard Cultivar EM10. OUP 2014, 74, 1164–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  187. Okadome, H.; Toyoshima, H.; Ohtsubo, K. Multiple Measurements of Physical Properties of Individual Cooked Rice Grains with a Single Apparatus. Cereal Chem. 1999, 76, 855–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Sánchez-Pardo, M.E.; Ortiz-Moreno, A.; Mora-Escobedo, R.; Chanona-Pérez, J.J.; Necoechea-Mondragón, H. Comparison of crumb microstructure from pound cakes baked in a microwave or conventional oven. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2008, 41, 620–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Ravn, L.; Andersen, N.; Rasmussen, M.; Christensen, M.; Edwards, S.; Guy, J.; Henckel, P.; Harrison, A. De electricitatis catholici musculari—Concerning the electrical properties of muscles, with emphasis on meat quality. Meat Sci. 2008, 80, 423–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  190. Campos, G.F.C.; Seixas, J.L.; Barbon, A.P.A.C.; Felinto, A.S.; Bridi, A.M.; Barbon, S. Robust computer vision system for marbling meat segmentation. Electron. Lett. Comput. Vis. Image Anal. 2020, 19, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  191. Chmiel, M.; Dasiewicz, K.; Słowiński, M. Quality evaluation of beef trimmings by video image analysis. Zywn. Nauk. Technol. Jakosc 2010, 17, 219–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Fabbri, G.; Gianesella, M.; Gallo, L.; Morgante, M.; Contiero, B.; Muraro, M.; Boso, M.; Fiore, E. Application of Ultrasound Images Texture Analysis for the Estimation of Intramuscular Fat Content in the Longissimus Thoracis Muscle of Beef Cattle after Slaughter: A Methodological Study. Animals 2021, 11, 1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Holman, B.W.B.; Hopkins, D.L. A comparison of the Nix Colour Sensor ProTM and HunterLab MiniScanTM colorimetric instruments when assessing aged beef colour stability over 72 h display. Meat Sci. 2019, 147, 162–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Gariépy, C.; Jones, S.D.M.; Tong, A.K.W.; Rodrigue, N. Assessment of the ColormetTM fiber optic probe for the evaluation of dark cutting beef. Food Res. Int. 1994, 27, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Shackelford, S.; Wheeler, T.; Koohmaraie, M. On-line classification of US Select beef carcasses for longissimus tenderness using visible and near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Meat Sci. 2005, 69, 409–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  196. Zollinger, B.; Farrow, R.; Lawrence, T.; Latman, N. Prediction of beef carcass salable yield and trimmable fat using bioelectrical impedance analysis. Meat Sci. 2010, 84, 449–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  197. Navajas, E.A.; Glasbey, C.A.; Fisher, A.V.; Ross, D.W.; Hyslop, J.J.; Richardson, R.I.; Simm, G.; Roehe, R. Assessing beef carcass tissue weights using computed tomography spirals of primal cuts. Meat Sci. 2010, 84, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  198. Robbins, K.; Jensen, J.; Ryan, K.; Homco-Ryan, C.; McKeith, F.; Brewer, M. Consumer attitudes towards beef and acceptability of enhanced beef. Meat Sci. 2003, 65, 721–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Elango, G.; Rahuman, A.A. Evaluation of medicinal plant extracts against ticks and fluke. Parasitol. Res. 2011, 108, 513–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Ranasinghesagara, J.; Nath, T.; Wells, S.; Weaver, A.; Gerrard, D.; Yao, G. Imaging optical diffuse reflectance in beef muscles for tenderness prediction. Meat Sci. 2010, 84, 413–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  201. Lepetit, J.; Culioli, J. Mechanical properties of meat. Meat Sci. 1994, 36, 203–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Jackman, P.; Sun, D.; Allen, P.; Brandon, K.; White, A. Correlation of consumer assessment of longissimus dorsi beef palatability with image colour, marbling and surface texture features. Meat Sci. 2010, 84, 564–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Qiao, X.; Du, R.; Wang, Y.; Han, Y.; Zhou, Z. Isolation, Characterisation and Fermentation Optimisation of Bacteriocin-Producing Enterococcus faecium. Waste Biomass Valoriz. 2020, 11, 3173–3181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Choi, Y.; Choi, J.; Han, D.; Kim, H.; Lee, M.; Kim, H.; Jeong, J.; Kim, C. Characteristics of low-fat meat emulsion systems with pork fat replaced by vegetable oils and rice bran fiber. Meat Sci. 2009, 82, 266–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Diéguez, P.M.; Beriain, M.J.; Insausti, K.; Arrizubieta, M.J. Thermal Analysis of Meat Emulsion Cooking Process by Computer Simulation and Experimental Measurement. Int. J. Food Eng. 2010, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Valous, N.A.; Mendoza, F.; Sun, D.W.; Allen, P. Texture appearance characterization of pre-sliced pork ham images using fractal metrics: Fourier analysis dimension and lacunarity. Food Res. Int. 2009, 42, 353–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Pérez-Marín, D.; De Pedro Sanz, E.; Guerrero-Ginel, J.; Garrido-Varo, A. A feasibility study on the use of near-infrared spectroscopy for prediction of the fatty acid profile in live Iberian pigs and carcasses. Meat Sci. 2009, 83, 627–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Niñoles, L.; Mulet, A.; Ventanas, S.; Benedito, J. Ultrasonic assessment of the melting behaviour in fat from Iberian dry-cured hams. Meat Sci. 2010, 85, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  209. Fitzpatrick, J.J.; O’Callaghan, E.; O’Flynn, J. Application of a novel cake strength tester for investigating caking of skim milk powder. Food Bioprod. Process. 2008, 86, 198–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Gaiani, C.; Ehrhardt, J.; Scher, J.; Hardy, J.; Desobry, S.; Banon, S. Surface composition of dairy powders observed by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and effects on their rehydration properties. Colloids Surf. B. Biointerfaces 2006, 49, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Keogh, M.K.; Murray, C.A.; O’Kennedy, B.T. Effects of ultrafiltration of whole milk on some properties of spray-dried milk powders. Int. Dairy J. 2003, 13, 995–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Jenike, A.W. Storage and flow of solids. In Bulletin of the University of Utah; The University of Utah: Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 1964; Volume 53, pp. 1–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  213. Kim, E.; Chen, X.; Pearce, D. Effect of surface composition on the flowability of industrial spray-dried dairy powders. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2005, 46, 182–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Boonyai, P.; Howes, T.; Bhandari, B. Instrumentation and testing of a thermal mechanical compression test for glass-rubber transition analysis of food powders. J. Food Eng. 2007, 78, 1333–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Özkan, N.; Walisinghe, N.; Chen, X.D. Characterization of stickiness and cake formation in whole and skim milk powders. J. Food Eng. 2002, 55, 293–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Chuy, L.E.; Labuza, T.P. Caking and Stickiness of Dairy-Based Food Powders as Related to Glass Transition. J. Food Sci. 1994, 59, 43–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Rennie, P.R.; Chen, X.D.; Hargreaves, C.; MacKereth, A.R. A study of the cohesion of dairy powders. J. Food Eng. 1999, 39, 277–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Mendoza, F.; Valous, N.; Sun, D.; Allen, P. Characterization of fat-connective tissue size distribution in pre-sliced pork hams using multifractal analysis. Meat Sci. 2009, 83, 713–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  219. Murti, R.A.; Paterson, A.H.J.; Pearce, D.; Bronlund, J.E. The influence of particle velocity on the stickiness of milk powder. Int. Dairy J. 2010, 20, 121–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Intipunya, P.; Shrestha, A.; Howes, T.; Bhandari, B. A modified cyclone stickiness test for characterizing food powders. J. Food Eng. 2009, 94, 300–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Hogan, S.A.; Famelart, M.H.; O’Callaghan, D.J.; Schuck, P. A novel technique for determining glass–rubber transition in dairy powders. J. Food Eng. 2010, 99, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Vithanage, C.R.; Grimson, M.J.; Smith, B.G. Temperature on the rheology of butter, a spreadable blend and spreads. J. Texture Stud. 2009, 40, 346–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Arana, I. Physical Properties of Foods: Novel Measurement Techniques and Applications; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  224. Glibowski, P.; Zarzycki, P.; Krzepkowska, M. The rheological and instrumental textural properties of selected table fats. Int. J. Food Prop. 2008, 11, 678–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Campos, R.; Narine, S.S.; Marangoni, A.G. Effect of cooling rate on the structure and mechanical properties of milk fat and lard. Food Res. Int. 2002, 35, 971–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Sodini, I.; Remeuf, F.; Haddad, S.; Corrieu, G. The relative effect of milk base, starter, and process on yogurt texture: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2004, 44, 113–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Lucey, J. ADSA Foundation Scholar Award. Formation and physical properties of milk protein gels. J. Dairy Sci. 2002, 85, 281–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Capellas, M.; Mor-Mur, M.; Sendra, E.; Guamis, B. Effect of high-pressure processing on physico-chemical characteristics of fresh goats’ milk cheese (Mató). Int. Dairy J. 2001, 11, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Innocente, N.; Biasutti, M.; Venir, E.; Spaziani, M.; Marchesini, G. Effect of high-pressure homogenization on droplet size distribution and rheological properties of ice cream mixes. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 1864–1875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Classification of physical properties of food materials.
Figure 1. Classification of physical properties of food materials.
Applsci 12 02004 g001
Figure 2. Novel techniques for assessment of physical properties of food materials.
Figure 2. Novel techniques for assessment of physical properties of food materials.
Applsci 12 02004 g002
Figure 3. Physical properties of fruits and vegetables and their techniques for measurement.
Figure 3. Physical properties of fruits and vegetables and their techniques for measurement.
Applsci 12 02004 g003
Figure 4. Physical properties of meat, fish, and poultry products and their techniques for measurement.
Figure 4. Physical properties of meat, fish, and poultry products and their techniques for measurement.
Applsci 12 02004 g004
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sarkar, T.; Salauddin, M.; Kirtonia, K.; Pati, S.; Rebezov, M.; Khayrullin, M.; Panasenko, S.; Tretyak, L.; Temerbayeva, M.; Kapustina, N.; et al. A Review on the Commonly Used Methods for Analysis of Physical Properties of Food Materials. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 2004. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12042004

AMA Style

Sarkar T, Salauddin M, Kirtonia K, Pati S, Rebezov M, Khayrullin M, Panasenko S, Tretyak L, Temerbayeva M, Kapustina N, et al. A Review on the Commonly Used Methods for Analysis of Physical Properties of Food Materials. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(4):2004. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12042004

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sarkar, Tanmay, Molla Salauddin, Kohima Kirtonia, Siddhartha Pati, Maksim Rebezov, Mars Khayrullin, Svetlana Panasenko, Lyudmila Tretyak, Marina Temerbayeva, Nadezhda Kapustina, and et al. 2022. "A Review on the Commonly Used Methods for Analysis of Physical Properties of Food Materials" Applied Sciences 12, no. 4: 2004. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12042004

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop