Consumer Acceptability and Descriptive Characterization of Fresh and Dried King Oyster (Pleurotus eryngii) and Hedgehog (Hydnum repandum) Mushrooms


  •  Elisa Boin    
  •  Cláudia Azevedo    
  •  João Nunes    
  •  Manuela Guerra    

Abstract

King oyster (Pleurotus eryngii) and hedgehog (Hydnum repandum) mushrooms have great commercial interest due to their nutraceutical and nutritional properties, besides being new products on the market. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptability and characterize descriptively fresh and dried Pleurotus eryngii and Hydnum repandum mushrooms. Raw mushrooms were analyzed by descriptive tests and cooked mushrooms were analyzed by hedonic, discriminative and descriptive tests. Descriptive analysis was performed by QDATM method with a semi-trained panel. Acceptability as a guide to consumer trends was assessed as hedonic tests with 20 untrained judges to evaluate appearance, aroma, texture, flavor, and purchase decision. To evaluate the influence of the drying process in sensory characteristics, mushroom risottos were compared by discriminative analysis. Raw fresh hedgehog mushroom was mainly characterized by the presence of teeth, cap waviness and intensity of aroma. Raw dried H. repandum was mainly depicted by the presence of teeth and wrinkles, crunchiness and hardness. Well-defined gills and velvet touch characterized raw fresh P. eryngii. Dried P. eryngii mushroom was crunchy and had different colors of cap and stem. All cooked mushrooms presented average hardness and were slightly umami, watery, chewy and had some umami aftertaste. Cooked Hydnum repandum presented high intensity of aroma and bitter aftertaste. Fresh and dried Pleurotus eryngii were well accepted, as well as fresh H. repandum. Dried H. repandum had low acceptability scores, being thus not recommended to be consumed sautéed, but in sauces or risottos.



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • Issn(Print): 1927-0887
  • Issn(Onlne): 1927-0895
  • Started: 2012
  • Frequency: bimonthly

Journal Metrics

Google-based Impact Factor (2018): 9.22

h-index (August 2018): 20

i10-index (August 2018): 73

h5-index (August 2018): 15  

h5-median(August 2018): 20 

( The data was calculated based on Google Scholar Citations. Click Here to Learn More. )

Contact