American Journal of Potato Research

, Volume 78, Issue 2, pp 99–107 | Cite as

Comparison of sensory differences of stored Russet Burbank potatoes treated with CIPC and alternative sprout inhibitors

  • Terri D. Boylston
  • Joseph R. Powers
  • Karen M. Weiler
  • Jian Yang


The sensory properties of Russet Burbank potatoes treated with three naturally occurring volatile compounds, as alternatives to CIPC for sprout inhibition, were evaluated. Potatoes from the 1995 and 1996 crop years were treated with salicylaldehyde, 1,8-cineole, 1,4-dimethylnaphthalene, or CIPC prior to dormancy break during storage and stored for up to 16 wk. Sensory differences between potatoes treated with alternative sprout inhibitors and CIPC-treated or untreated potatoes and inhibitor concentration were determined at 2-wk intervals. Potatoes treated with 1,8-cineole or salicylaldehyde, but not 1,4-dimethylnaphthalene, were significantly different from the untreated potatoes or potatoes treated with CIPC. Sensory detection threshold levels for the alternative inhibitors were measured in a model potato system. The residual levels of the sprout inhibitors were within the detection threshold range for 1,8-cineole (0.02–0.04 ppm), but not for salicylaldehyde (0.0–0.10 ppm) or 1,4-dimethylnaphthalene (0.80–1.40 ppm). The presence of the residual sprout inhibitors and/or the influence of sprout inhibitors on potato metabolism during storage contributed to observed differences in sensory quality of stored potatoes.

Additional Key Words

Storage sprout inhibitors sensory quality 1,8-cineole salicylaldehyde 1,4-dimethylnaphthalene 





isopropyl-N-chlorophenyl carbamate


1,4-dimethyl naphthalene


emulsifiable concentrate




Se evaluaron las propiedades sensoriales de la variedad Russet Burbank con tres compuestos volátiles que ocurren naturalmente, como alternativas al CIPC para la inhibición de la germinación. Las papas de las compañas de 1995 y 1996 fueron tratadas con salicilaldehído, 1,8-cineol, 1,4-dimetilnaftaleno y CIPC antes de perder la dormancia y luego almacenadas por más de 16 semanas. Las diferencias sensoriales entre las papas tratadas con inhibidores alternativos de germinación y CIPC, y las papas no tratadas y la concentración del inhibidor fueron determinadas con intervalos de dos semanas. Las papas tratadas con el 1,8-cineol o salicilaldehído, pero no con el, 1,4-dimetilnaftaleno, fueron signifciativamente diferentes de las papas no tratadas o de las papas tratadas con CIPC. Los niveles del umbral de detección sensorial de los inhibidores altarnativos se midieron en un sistema modelo de papa. Los niveles residuales de los inhibidores de germinación estuvieron dentro del rango del umbral de detección para el 1,8-cineole (0.02–0.04 ppm), pero no para el salicilaldehído (0.09–0.10 ppm) o el 1,4-dimetilnaftaleno (0.80–1.40 ppm). La presencia de inhibidores residuales de germinación y/o la influencia de los inhibidores de germinación en el metabolismo de la papa durante el almacenamiento contribuyó a las diferencias observadas en la calidad sensorial de las papas almacenadas.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Aldrich. 1998. Flavors and Fragrances. Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Company, Inc., Milwaukee, WI.Google Scholar
  2. ASTM Committee E 18 on Sensory Evaluation of Materials and Products. 1979. ASTM Manual on Consumer Sensory Evaluation. E. E. Schaefer, ed. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  3. Beveridge, J.L., J. Dalziel, and H.J. Duncan. 1981a The assessment of some volatile organic compounds as sprout suppressants for ware and seed potatoes. Potato Res 24:1–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beveridge, J.L., J. Dalziel, and H.J. Duncan. 1981b. Dimethylnaphthalene as a sprout suppressant for seed and ware potatoes. Potato Res 24:77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boylston, T.D., E.M. Kupferman, J.D. Foss, and C. Buering. 1994. Sensory quality of Gala apples as influenced by controlled and regular atmosphere storage. J Food Qual 17:477–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daniels-Lake, B.J., R.K Prange, W. Kalt, C.L. Liew, J. Walsh, P. Dean, and R. Coffin. 1996. The effects of ozone and 1,8-cineole on sprouting, fry color and sugars of stored Russet Burbank potatoes. Am Potato J 73:469–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gartrell, M.J., J.C. Craun, D.S. Podrebarac, and E.L. Gunderson. 1986. Chemical contaminants monitoring. FDA total diet study, April 1982-April 1984, dietary intakes of pesticides, selected elements, and other chemicals. J Assn Off Anal Chem 71:1200–1209.Google Scholar
  8. Meigh, D.F. 1969. Suppression of sprouting in stored potatoes by volatile organic compounds. J Sci Food Agric 20:159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Meigh, D.F., A.A. E. Filmer, and R. Self. 1973. Growth-inhibitory volatile aromatic compounds produced bySolanum tuberosum tubers. Phytochem 12:987–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Meilgaard, M., C. G. Civille, and B.T. Carr. 1999. Determining thresholds.In: Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 3rd edition. CRC Press, NY. Chapter 8, pp. 123–132.Google Scholar
  11. Roessler, E.B., R.M. Pangborn, J.L. Sidel, and H. Stone. 1978. Expanded statistical tables for estimating significance in paired-preference, paired-difference, duo-trio and triangle tests. J Food Sci 43:940–943, 947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. SAS Institute, Inc. 1993. SAS User’s Guide Statistics. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  13. Vaughn, S.F. and G.F. Spencer. 1991. Volatile monoterpenes inhibit potato tuber sprouting. Am Potato J 68:821–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Vaughn, S.F. and G.F. Spencer. 1992. Aromatic aldehydes and alcohols as potato tuber sprout inhibitors. United States Patent. US005129951.Google Scholar
  15. Vokou, D., S. Vareltzidou, and P. Katinakis. 1993. Effects of aromatic plants on potato storage: sprout suppression and antimicrobial activity. Agric Ecosystems Environ 47:223–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Yang, J., J.R. Powers, T.D. Boylston, and K.M. Weiler. 1999. Sugars and free amino acids in stored Russet Burbank potatoes treated with CIPC and alternative sprout inhibitors. J Food Sci 64:592–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terri D. Boylston
    • 1
  • Joseph R. Powers
    • 1
  • Karen M. Weiler
    • 1
  • Jian Yang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Food Science and Human NutritionWashington State UniversityPullman

Personalised recommendations