Journal Pre-proof

Consumers’ Acceptability and Perceptions toward the Consumption of Hydroponically

and Soil Grown Broccoli Microgreens

Hsiangting Chen, Xiao Tong, Libo Tan, Lingyan Kong

PII: S2666-1543(20)30032-6
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2020.100051
Reference: JAFR 100051

To appear in: Journal of Agriculture and Food Research

Received Date: 23 March 2020

Revised Date: 15 June 2020
Accepted Date: 15 June 2020

Please cite this article as: H. Chen, X. Tong, L. Tan, L. Kong, Consumers’ Acceptability and Perceptions
toward the Consumption of Hydroponically and Soil Grown Broccoli Microgreens, Journal of Agriculture
and Food Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2020.100051.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.

Consumers’ Acceptability and Perceptions toward the Consumption of Hydroponically and

Soil Grown Broccoli Microgreens

Hsiangting Chena,*, Xiao Tongb, Libo Tana, Lingyan Konga,*

a
Department of Human Nutrition and Hospitality Management, University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487
b
Department of Clothing, Textile, & Interior Design, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL
35487

*Corresponding authors.
Address:
416 Russell Hall, 504 University Blvd, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA (H. Chen)
482 Russell Hall, 504 University Blvd, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA (L. Kong)
E-mail address:
htchen@ches.ua.edu (H. Chen)
lkong@ches.ua.edu (L. Kong)

1
Abstract

Microgreens are young and immature plants that are harvested after the development of the

cotyledon leaves, or seed leaves. Because of their potent flavors and appealing sensory qualities,

microgreens have gained popularity. This study aimed to investigate the differences in sensory

attributes and consumers’ perception between microgreens from commercial and local farms.

Three samples of broccoli microgreens, including commercial hydroponically grown, local

hydroponically grown, and local soil grown, respectively, were evaluated in this study. A total of

150 participants completed an acceptability study of broccoli microgreens and answered

questions regarding perceived pricing, perceived benefits, and their willingness-to-buy. Overall,

the participants rated the microgreens from the local farm as more favorable, regardless of

growing method. The commercial microgreen sample from the local grocery had the lowest

scores on all sensory attributes. The results also indicated that both sensory evaluation and

consumers’ perceived benefits present important roles in consumers’ reference and consumption

of microgreens. Pricing, however, did not show significant and direct effect on consumers’

purchase intention. Consumers’ purchase intention was more affected by the sensory quality and

perceived benefits than the pricing, in the case of broccoli microgreens. This study contributes to

the literature of microgreens consumption and provides practical implications to help farmers

and food retailers in the microgreens market.

Keywords

Microgreens; consumer behavior; sensory; perception; purchase intention

2
1. Introduction

Consumers are questing for new food products that support health and longevity combined

with gastronomic delight [1]. Microgreens are an emerging specialty food product that has

garnered increased attention in the United States. Microgreens originated in the late 1980’s San

Francisco area when they started appearing on chefs’ menus. Given their exotic varieties and

vivid colors, microgreens serve as a novel and widely used ingredient in sandwiches, salads, and

garnish to enhance the sensory properties in a variety of dishes [2]. In addition, researchers

suggested that consuming microgreens could provide health benefits to prevent inflammation-

related diseases, as well as to promote healthy eating due to a high concentration of

phytochemicals and vitamins [3, 4]. As such, microgreens as a specialty food product have

gained increased attention in food markets and restaurants [5].

With the expending demand, there is an increasing interest in microgreens’ commercial

production. Microgreens can be grown in greenhouses, in soil or in soilless systems, by using

organic or non-organic, solid or hydroponic growing media. The choice of the growing medium

represents one of the most critical aspects of the production process for microgreens because the

growing medium constitutes one of the main costs of production, plays a major role in

determining the yield and quality of microgreens, and influences the environmental sustainability

of the production process [6]. Due to the fact that ideal growing media for microgreens are

locally available and relatively inexpensive, many local farmers engage in producing

microgreens in greenhouses [5].

Given the culinary trend and market demand, it is important to understand consumers’

sensory experience, perceptions, and intentions to purchase and consume microgreens. Studies

suggested that sensory attributes, such as appearance, aroma, texture, and perceived nutritional

3
value are critical factors governing consumers’ decision-making when purchasing vegetables [7].

However, as a novelty crop, microgreens are still relatively infant, and there is limited research

regarding consumers’ sensory evaluation and purchase intention toward microgreens [8, 9].

Moreover, no previous studies have specifically investigated the differences in sensory attributes

among commercial, local soil-grown and hydroponically grown microgreens. Thus, the purpose

of this study is three-fold: (1) To examine the differences in sensory attributes between

commercial (hydroponically grown) and local farm-grown microgreens (available as both soil

and hydroponically grown); (2) To investigate the effects of sensory attributes on consumers’

perceptions and purchase intention of microgreens; (3) To investigate the effects of consumers’

perceptions and product price on consumers’ purchase intention of microgreens. Figure 1

illustrates the research model and hypotheses of this study.

H1: There will be significant differences in consumer evaluation of sensory attributes (smell,

appearance, taste, and overall liking) among broccoli microgreens hydroponically grown from

commercial and local farms, and soil grown from a local farm.

H2: Consumer perception of sensory attributes will have a significant and positive effect on

their perceived benefits of microgreens consumption.

H3: Consumer perception of sensory attributes will have a significant and positive effect on

their willingness-to-buy.

H4: Consumer perceived pricing will have a significant and positive effect on their

perceived benefits of microgreens consumption.

H5: Consumer perceived pricing will have a significant and negative effect on their

willingness-to-buy.

4
 H6: Consumer perceived benefits of microgreens products will have a significant and

positive effect on their willingness-to-buy.

We expected that consumer evaluation of sensory attributes would be different between

commercial and local farm microgreens. Also, we expected that consumers’ overall sensory

evaluation and perceived pricing of microgreens would significantly influence their perceptions

of product benefits and their willingness-to-buy.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Sample preparation for sensory evaluation

Since broccoli microgreen (Brassica oleracea) was the only species available to the

researchers in both local grocery stores and local farms, it was selected for this study. The

commercial broccoli microgreen sample, which was hydroponically grown, was purchased from

a local grocery store in Alabama, USA, where the researchers were located. This sample was

designated as “commercial-hydroponic” in this article. The locally grown broccoli microgreen

samples were purchased from a local farm in Alabama, which uses organic farming practices for

growing high-quality organic microgreens. Microgreens can be produced in soil-based or

hydroponic growing systems. Hydroponic systems are often used in commercial operations for

their high productivity. In micro-scale operations, such as local farms, both soil based and

hydroponic systems are utilized [6]. In order to elucidate the effects of the growing environment

(soil based vs. hydroponic system) on the qualities of microgreens, microgreen samples both

grown in soil and hydroponically were obtained from the local farm and were designated as

“farm-hydroponic” and “farm-soil” in this article. The commercial-hydroponic microgreens were

packaged in plastic clamshell containers with an unknown harvest date, while the samples from

the local farm were harvested on the same day of delivery and packaged in paper clamshell

5
containers. Samples were used for laboratory analysis on the day of purchase and stored at 4 °C

for the sensory study during the following three days.

2.2. Study protocol

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the researchers’

institution. Participants were recruited on campus at The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa,

Alabama (the student population was about 38,000). The researchers recruited volunteer

participants in the student center: the researchers and their assistants approached the students

who came in the student center during weekday lunch time (11am-2pm) in April 2019. The

students were asked if they would be interested in testing microgreens and participating in this

study. The researchers first explained the purpose of this study, obtained the participants’

consent, and then provided the participants with three samples of broccoli microgreens for

testing: commercial-hydroponic, farm-hydroponic, and farm-soil samples (Figure 2). First,

participants were informed that the study required a blind, sensory evaluation of three samples:

they tasted and evaluated the samples in terms of smell, appearance, taste, and overall liking on a

7 point Likert scale ranging from very poor (1) to excellent (7). Participants used distilled water

as a palate cleanser between tastings. After the sensory evaluation, participants were given more

information regarding the samples, including the sources of samples (commercial store vs. local

farm), growing method (hydroponic vs. soil-based), and the selling price per ounce. Then,

participants were asked to complete a survey regarding their perceived pricing, perceived

benefits, and willingness-to-buy of each sample in a 5 point Likert scale, from strongly disagree

(1) to strongly agree (5). One item measuring perceived pricing was adopted from Dodds,

Monroe, and Grewal: “The price of the product is high” [10]. Items measuring perceived benefits

were modified from Lea & Worsley [11] and Ares & Gámbaro [12]. The variable of willingness-

6
to-buy was measured based upon Dodds, Monroe, & Grewal [10] using the following item: “My

willingness to buy this product is very high.” In addition, questions regarding prior experience of

purchasing microgreens and demographic information were included at the end of the survey. All

questions were answered in a paper ballot. The participants who completed the study received a

$3 gift card as an incentive.

2.3. Data analysis

Data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics Software 25 and AMOS (IBM,

Armonk, NY). To ensure the assumptions for data analysis were met, the normality, the

multivariate analysis, and the homoscedasticity analyses were tested before conducting further

analysis [13]. The criterion of Cronbach’s alpha (α) was 0.7 and was utilized to detect the

internal consistency of the measurement items [14].

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive information of sampling

Data from 150 participants were collected and analyzed in this study. Through a preliminary

data screening, all assumptions of the univariate normality, linearity, and multicollinearity were

met, which indicate the satisfactory data quality [15]. Table 1 (reprinted from Tan et al. (2019)

[16], with permission from Elsevier) summaries the descriptive information of sampling. The

participants consisted of 59 males (38%) and 91 females (61%). The majority of participants

were between 19-24 years old (75%) and currently attending college (68%). In terms of spending

on groceries per week, 46% answered that they spend from $50-100 and 29% spend less than

$50. When the participants were asked about their prior experience purchasing and consuming

microgreens, 82% had not purchased and 69% had not consumed microgreens before

participating in this study.

7
Table 1. Descriptive information of participants (N=150). Table reprinted from Tan et al. (2019)

[16], with permission from Elsevier.

Variable Frequency Percentage %

Gender
Male 57 38
Female 93 62
Age
19-24 113 75
25-34 23 15
35-44 10 7
45-54 2 1
55-64 2 1
Education
High school 7 5
Attending college 102 68
College graduate 16 11
Post-graduate 25 17
Ethnicity
Caucasian 86 57
African-American 25 17
Hispanic 7 5
Asian 25 17
Others 7 4
Marital Status
Never Married 120 80
Married 26 17
Separated 1 <1
Others 3 2
Household spending on grocery per week
<$50 43 29
$50-$100 68 45
$101-$150 23 15
$151-$200 5 3
$201-$250 5 3
>$250 5 3
Missing value 1 <1

8
3.2. Sensory evaluations

The sensory evaluation results were presented in a previously published article by the same

authors [16]. The results indicated that there were significant differences among the three

samples for all the sensory attributes, including smell, appearance, taste, and overall liking. Thus,

H1 was supported. The results also indicated that respondents rated farm-soil microgreens

appearance slightly better than farm-hydroponic microgreens; however, the means of smell, taste,

and overall liking were not significantly different between the farm-hydroponic and farm-soil

samples.

3.3. Perceived benefits and willingness-to-buy

The researchers further conducted an ANOVA to understand whether participants’

perceived benefits and willingness-to-buy were different among the three samples. The mean

scores of perceived benefits and willingness to buy were utilized as two dependent variables. The

results showed that both participants’ perceived product benefits and willingness to buy between

samples were significantly different, Fbenefits (2, 449) = 66.45, p < 0.01; Fwillingness-to-buy (2, 449) =

10.91, p < 0.01. A Games-Howell post hoc test indicated the main differences of perceived

product benefits existed between commercial-hydroponic (M=3.43) and farm-hydroponic

(M=4.05), as well as commercial-hydroponic (M=3.43) and farm-soil (M=4.12). The differences

of willingness-to-buy were shown between commercial-hydroponic (M=2.80) and farm-

hydroponic (M=3.25), in addition to commercial-hydroponic (M=2.80) and farm-soil

microgreens (M=3.17) (Table 2).

Table 2. The results of post hoc comparison (Games-Howell) of main differences of perceived

product benefits and willingness-to-buy among three samples.

9
 Variables Samples Mean Std. Std.
Deviation Error
Perceived Commercial-hydroponic 3.43 .687 .056
benefits Farm-hydroponic 4.05 .483 .039
Farm-soil 4.12 .536 .044
Willingness- Commercial-hydroponic 2.80 .936 .076
to-buy Farm-hydroponic 3.25 .827 .068
Farm-soil 3.17 .905 .074

3.4. Reliability and validity of measures

To examine H2-H6, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was first done on the 6 items

measuring perceived benefits and willingness-to-buy with a varimax rotation. EFA produced two

distinct factors among the items (perceived benefits and willingness-to-buy). Cronbach’s alpha

coefficients were then used to examine the internal consistency of the items, and items with

adequate Cronbach’s alphas were retained for the scales. The Cronbach’s alpha values for

“sensory evaluation,” “perceived benefits,” and “willingness-to-buy,” were 0.86, 0.77, and 0.71,

respectively. The factor of consumers’ perceived pricing was treated as an observed variable.

Next, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed for the measurement model with

three constructs using AMOS. The model fit criteria suggested by Hu and Bentler [17] were used

for the measurement model: χ2/df, Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI),

and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). The goodness-of-fit statistics

indicated that all criteria met the recommended values in the measurement model: (χ2)/df = 2.59

(p < 0.001); CFI = 0.98; GFI = 0.97; AGFI = 0.94; RMR = 0.05; and RMSEA = 0.06.

All factor loadings were significant, and varied from 0.58 to 0.97, satisfying the convergent

validity criteria. The unidimensionality and convergent validity of the constructs were assessed

by the composite reliability (CR) measure and the average variance extracted (AVE),

10
respectively. The CR varied from 0.75 to 0.82, satisfying the criteria of 0.6. The average

variance extracted varied from 0.59 to 0.78, thus satisfying the criteria of 0.50. Table 3 shows the

factor loadings, CR, and AVE. In addition, the discriminant validity of the scales evaluated for

all possible paired combinations of the constructs and all χ2 differences were significant,

demonstrating good discriminant validity of all scales. Correlation coefficients of all latent

variables are shown in Table 4.

Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis for the constructs.

Standardized
Latent Variables and Observed Indicators t-value 3
Factor Loading
Sensory Evaluation (α = 0.86 , CR = 0.75, AVE = 0.71 1)
1. Smell 0.62 15.74
2. Appearance 0.65 17.27
3. Taste 0.80 24.54
4. Overall liking 0.97 –2
Perceived Benefits (α = 0.77, CR = 0.82, AVE = 0.59)
1. I think this product is very healthy. 0.60 –
2. I believe this product provides a lot of vitamins and minerals. 0.61 9.06
3. I trust the quality of this product. 0.93 11.32
4. I think this product is environmentally friendly. 0.58 9.26
Willingness to Buy (α = 0.71, CR = 0.77, AVE = 0.78)
1. This product is good value for the money. 0.60 –
2. My willingness to buy this product is very high. 0.94 8.99
Note:
1. α = Cronbach’s alpha, CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted.
2. “–” identifies the path parameter was set to 1, therefore, no t-value was given.
3. All loadings are significant at 0.001 level.

Table 4. Correlations among latent variables.

1 2 3
1. Sensory Evaluation 1.00
0.56
2. Perceived Benefits 1.00
(8.13)
0.51 0.53
3. Willingness-to-buy (6.69) (5.94) 1.00

11
3.5. Structural model

To assess the statistical significance of proposed relationships in the conceptual model, a

structural equation model was utilized to analyze the variables in this study (Figure 1). Sensory

evaluation and pricing were taken as the exogenous variables, and perceived benefits and

willingness-to-buy as the endogenous variables.

All of the fit measures indicated that the structural model was acceptable (χ2/df) = 2.11 (p <

0.001); CFI = 0.98; GFI = 0.97; AGFI = 0.95; RMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.05). Apart from the

model’s general fit for the data, its parameters were tested to decide whether to accept the

proposed relationships between exogenous and endogamous constructs [18].

The results provided strong support for H2, H3, H4, and H6, which indicated that sensory

evaluation and perceived pricing positively affect consumers’ perceived benefits of consuming

microgreen products. The results also suggested that the higher the perceived benefits of

microgreens, the greater the likelihood that consumers will buy microgreens (β = 0.34, p < 0.01).

However, perceived pricing was not found to have a significant influence on consumers’

willingness-to-buy (p > 0.05). The results are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5. Results of hypotheses testing.

Support
Parameter Estimate Standardized p-value Hypothesis
(Yes/No)
Sensory Evaluation Perceived Benefits 0.50 < 0.01 H2 Yes
Sensory Evaluation Willingness-to-Buy 0.31 < 0.01 H3 Yes
Perceived Pricing Product Benefits 0.30 < 0.01 H4 Yes
Perceived Pricing Willingness-to-Buy -0.02 > 0.05 H5 No
Perceived Benefits Willingness to Buy 0.34 < 0.01 H6 Yes
Note: N=450

12
4. Discussion and Implications

As an emerging food product category, research in microgreens related to consumers’

acceptability and intent to purchase is scarce. This study was conducted to understand whether

the sensory evaluation differs in commercially grown and locally grown microgreens, as well as

examine the factors that influence consumers’ microgreens consumption. Consumers’ acceptance

of fresh produce depends on several attributes of food quality. Nutritional values and sensory

attributes are often important factors governing the consumer acceptance of a food product and

their intent to purchase [19]. The sensory quality has long been recognized as one of the most

important factors consumers consider when choosing their food [20]. Important sensory

attributes of food are appearance, odor/fragrance, consistency/texture, and flavor. These

perceptions often occur simultaneously as an overall sensory experience. Appearance is the most

important quality attribute of fresh and minimally processed produce, with primary concern for

size and color uniformity, glossiness, and absence of defects in shape or skin finish. Flavor is an

important internal factor for fresh produce. Consumers often buy the first time based on

appearance, but consumer satisfaction and repeat purchases are driven by internal quality factors

such as flavor and texture [7, 21]. Flavor is comprised of taste and aroma related mainly to

sugars, acids, and volatile compounds [22]. Common taste components in fresh produce are

sweetness, acidity, astringency, and bitterness. Smell helps consumers to discover and enjoy food

as much as taste. The volatiles occurring in a food that can be perceived by the human nose

contributes to the aroma and flavor of the food. The texture of fruits and vegetables is often

interpreted in terms of firmness, crispness, juiciness, and toughness, where firm or crispy tissues

are generally desired in fresh and minimally processed produce [23].

13
 In a blind sensory testing, significance was found among three microgreens samples (Table

2). The sample of commercial-hydroponic broccoli had the lowest scores regarding all sensory

attributes (smell, appearance, taste, and overall liking) and was found significantly different than

the other two samples from the local farm. Previous studies investigating the sensory evaluation

of conventional and organic grown vegetables did not find significant differences [24, 25].

However, in the current study of microgreens’ sensory tasting, participants rated the commercial-

hydroponic broccoli microgreens prominently lower than the locally grown microgreens.

Similarly, participants’ perceptions of product benefits and willingness-to-buy scored lower in

the conventionally grown than locally grown microgreens. The sensory differences between

samples from conventional and local farms could be influenced by the microgreens’ pre-harvest

and post-harvest conditions. Microgreens have tender textures and delicate appearances and are

often called “vegetable confetti” [2]. Therefore, it is possible that the sensory testing of

microgreens can be very distinct depending on the growing conditions, such as light quality and

intensity [6]. Since microgreens are highly perishable, they often are sold in a living medium to

keep the plantlets alive and growing [2]. However, the packaging, shelf-life, and harvest time can

change the quality and flavor of microgreens very rapidly [26]. Thus, it is likely that the sensory

quality is influenced by the growing, transportation, and storage conditions of microgreens in

grocery stores versus local farms. Future research could further scrutinize the impacts of packing

conditions and shelf-life of microgreen products. In addition, the nutritional qualities of

microgreens harvested in a hydroponic versus soil farming practices can be investigated.

Furthermore, the sensory evaluation between farm-hydroponic and farm-soil microgreens

showed that there were partially or no difference between these two samples. This result

indicates that consumers may not taste a difference between soil and hydroponically grown

14
microgreens from the local farm. Since hydroponics is an eco-friendly, cost-saving, and highly

productive method for vegetable production [27], hydroponic cultivations of microgreens could

gain competency in the emerging global hydroponics market, as well as meet the growing

demand of microgreens consumption.

The combination of sensory evaluation and consumer acceptability has only been

investigated in one previous study on microgreens [8], yet different types of microgreens and

analysis methods were used. Due to very limited studies investigating consumers’ sensory

evaluation and perceptions toward microgreens’ consumption, this study provides empirical

contribution into understanding how different intrinsic (i.e., sensory aspects) and extrinsic

attributes (i.e., perceived product benefits and pricing) impact consumers’ purchase intention of

microgreens. Food choice is a complex function of preferences for sensory characteristics

combined with the influence of non-sensory factors [28]. Previous studies have found that

perceived price, product claim, and quality (as non-sensory factors) had an important impact on

consumers’ food choices [29]. Consumers’ perceived benefits, such as product quality,

healthiness, natural content, sensory appeal, pricing, and benefits for environment and local

community, all contributed to consumers’ attitude and willingness-to-buy fresh food products

[30, 31]. Another study found that when consumers perceived higher benefits of purchasing

organic food products, they were more likely to pay for the products even though the price was

premium [32]. The study of Namkung & Jang [33] also supported the hypothesized positive

linkage between food quality and consumer behavioral intentions.

Consumer food choice also depends on the price they have to pay for the qualities sought.

Perceived pricing was defined as the consumer's perception of the product's price compared to

other brands of the same product with similar specifications [34]. Many researchers have agreed

15
that perceived price is an important determinant of customers’ post-purchase behaviors.

According to traditional economic theory, price is viewed as a monetary sacrifice needed to

make a purchase. Therefore, a high price tag increases consumers’ perception of an economic

cost thereby negatively influencing their purchase intentions [35-38]. For example, the relatively

higher price of organic products has been the most significant reason for not buying organic food

especially for low-income consumers [39]. Although price is the major cost cue, it has also been

found to be an indicator of quality. Price is a relevant quality cue when consumers do not have

adequate information about intrinsic quality cues or when it is the only available cue [38]. As a

consequence, it is often argued that price has a positive influence on expected quality: The higher

the price, the higher the expectations of quality. The trade-off between expected quality and

expected costs, and its impact on intention to buy, is commonly analyzed by means of conjoint

analysis.

The results from the structural equation model indicate that both consumers’ sensory

evaluation and pricing influence their perceived benefits of consuming microgreen products

(Table 3). In addition, the sensory evaluation and perceived product benefits had direct and

significant effects on consumers’ willingness-to-buy. This finding is consistent with previous

research, which addressed that consumers’ purchase intention was profoundly driven by their

perceived benefits and evaluation of food products [30, 32]. These benefits include the

perception of healthiness, nutritional values, food quality, and ecological sustainability. When

consumers expect higher benefits of consuming microgreens, they are more willing to purchase

microgreens products. The factor of pricing, on the other hand, has a direct and significant

impact on product benefits, but not on consumers’ willingness-to-buy. Specifically, if consumers

recognize the microgreens are reasonable priced, their perceived benefits of the products will

16
increase, which in turn, influences their intention to purchase the microgreens. This indirect

effect indicates that consumers’ decision-making is an intricate process, which intertwines with

their evaluation of overall product benefits. The implication for microgreens farmers and food

retailers is to address microgreens’ benefits to consumers, such as promoting high nutrient

concentrations (i.e., super food) and enriching vegetable diet [2, 26]. As consumers’ health

awareness increases, the perceived benefit of nutritional values often influences the consumers’

purchasing decision regarding microgreens [8]. Therefore, providing the nutritional information

of microgreens could enhance consumers’ microgreens consumption. Particularly in this study, a

majority of participants had not previously consumed nor purchased microgreens. Educating

consumers about the benefits and values of microgreens could help farmers and food retailers

promote microgreens consumption.

5. Conclusion

Understanding the factors that motivate consumers’ food purchase intention can help food

producers and sellers better target their consumers and stay competitive in the food market [32].

Microgreens as a specialty crop have gained popularity due to emerging gastronomic trends and

consumers’ health awareness. This study investigated the differences in sensory attributes and

consumer perceptions between commercial and locally grown microgreens. The broccoli

microgreens from a local farm with an organic farming practice did show a better overall sensory

score than the one from a commercial source. Pricing, as an important indicator of purchase

intention, was found to have an indirect impact on willingness-to-buy through consumers’

perceived product benefits. Furthermore, it is acknowledged that the packaging, harvest time,

and storage conditions influence the quality of microgreens and thus consumers’ sensory

evaluation and acceptability.

17
6. Limitations

The findings from this study contribute to the literature of consumers’ microgreens

consumption and provide practical implications to help farmers and food retailers in the

microgreens market. Yet, as limitations existed in this study, more research is needed to look at

different species of microgreens to gain more understanding of sensory evaluation and

consumers’ preferences. In this study, the sample of commercial microgreens did not specify the

harvest date. The unknown harvest date could potentially affect the quality and the taste of

microgreens. Thus, future studies could use commercial microgreens with known harvest date

for consumers’ sensory evaluation. In addition, sampling diverse populations, such as restaurant

chefs or commercial food buyers, could provide diverse sensory insights toward purchasing

microgreens versus general consumers. Therefore, further research is needed to identify various

consumer segments in microgreens consumption. Finally, although the participants were

separated from each other while completing the sensory evaluation, the room was not quiet, and

the participants could hear and see each other. It is possible that the environment might cause

distraction for the participants.

Acknowledgments

This project is funded by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, Specialty Crop Block

Grant Program, as USDA-AMS award # AM180100XXXXG034, granted to L. Kong and L. Tan,

the co-anchor authors on this manuscript. The authors would like to thank Microgreen

Enterprises, Inc. dba Alabama Microgreens at Huntsville, AL, and the Spencer Farm at Marion

Junction, AL, for providing knowledge and microgreen samples.

18
Conflict of Interest

The authors confirm that they have no conflict of interest to declare for this publication.

19
References

[1] A. Drewnowski and C. Gomez-Carneros, Bitter taste, phytonutrients, and the consumer: a
review, The American journal of clinical nutrition, 72 (2000), 1424-1435.
[2] D. D. Treadwell, R. Hochmuth, L. Landrum and W. Laughlin, Microgreens: A new specialty
crop, University of Florida IFAS Extension HS1164 (2010).
[3] U. Choe, L. L. Yu and T. T. Wang, The science behind microgreens as an exciting new food
for the 21st century, Journal of agricultural and food chemistry, 66 (2018), 11519-11530.
[4] Z. Xiao, G. E. Lester, Y. Luo and Q. Wang, Assessment of vitamin and carotenoid
concentrations of emerging food products: edible microgreens, Journal of agricultural and
Food Chemistry, 60 (2012), 7644-7651.
[5] S. A. Mir, M. A. Shah and M. M. Mir, Microgreens: Production, shelf life, and bioactive
components, Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 57 (2017), 2730-2736.
[6] M. C. Kyriacou, Y. Rouphael, F. Di Gioia, A. Kyratzis, F. Serio, M. Renna, S. De Pascale
and P. Santamaria, Micro-scale vegetable production and the rise of microgreens, Trends in
food science & technology, 57 (2016), 103-115.
[7] D. M. Barrett, J. C. Beaulieu and R. Shewfelt, Color, flavor, texture, and nutritional quality
of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables: desirable levels, instrumental and sensory measurement,
and the effects of processing, Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 50 (2010), 369-
389.
[8] Z. Xiao, G. E. Lester, E. Park, R. A. Saftner, Y. Luo and Q. Wang, Evaluation and
correlation of sensory attributes and chemical compositions of emerging fresh produce:
Microgreens, Postharvest Biology and Technology, 110 (2015), 140-148.
[9] K. A. Michell, H. Isweiri, S. E. Newman, M. Bunning, L. L. Bellows, M. M. Dinges, L. E.
Grabos, S. Rao, M. T. Foster and A. L. Heuberger, Microgreens: Consumer sensory
perception and acceptance of an emerging functional food crop, Journal of Food Science, 85
(2020), 926-935.
[10] W. B. Dodds, K. B. Monroe and D. Grewal, Effects of price, brand, and store information on
buyers’ product evaluations, Journal of marketing research, 28 (1991), 307-319.
[11] E. Lea and T. Worsley, Australians' organic food beliefs, demographics and values, British
food journal, 107 (2005), 855-869.
[12] G. Ares and A. Gámbaro, Influence of gender, age and motives underlying food choice on
perceived healthiness and willingness to try functional foods, Appetite, 49 (2007), 148-158.
[13] R. Field, B. A. Hawkins, H. V. Cornell, D. J. Currie, J. A. F. Diniz-Filho, J.-F. Guégan, D.
M. Kaufman, J. T. Kerr, G. G. Mittelbach, T. Oberdorff, E. M. O’Brien and J. R. G. Turner,
Spatial species-richness gradients across scales: a meta-analysis, Journal of Biogeography,
36 (2009), 132-147, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-
2699.2008.01963.x.
[14] P. Kline, Handbook of psychological testing, Routledge, 2013.
[15] J. A. DeSimone, P. D. Harms and A. J. DeSimone, Best practice recommendations for data
screening, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36 (2015), 171-181.
[16] L. Tan, H. Nuffer, J. Feng, S. H. Kwan, H. Chen, X. Tong and L. Kong, Antioxidant
Properties and Sensory Evaluation of Microgreens from Commercial and Local Farms, Food
Science and Human Wellness, 9 (2019), 45-51.

20
[17] L. t. Hu and P. M. Bentler, Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal 6(1999), 1-55.
[18] J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson and R. L. Tatham, Multivariate data
analysis, Prentice hall Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998.
[19] D. Bourn and J. Prescott, A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food
safety of organically and conventionally produced foods, Critical reviews in food science
and nutrition, 42 (2002), 1-34.
[20] A. Steptoe, T. M. Pollard and J. Wardle, Development of a measure of the motives
underlying the selection of food: the food choice questionnaire, Appetite, 25 (1995), 267-
284.
[21] B. Lund and A. Snowdon, Fresh and processed fruits, in The microbiological safety and
quality of food, eds. B. M. Lund, A. C. T. Baird-Parker and G. W. Gould, Aspen Publishers,
Gaithersburg, MD, USA, (2000), vol. 1, pp. 738-758.
[22] D. DeRovira, The dynamic flavor profile method, Food technology (USA) (1996).
[23] J. Aked, Fruits and vegetables, in The Stability and Shelf-Life of Food, eds. P. Subramaniam
and D. Kilcast, Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, England, (2000), pp. 249-278.
[24] V. Brazinskiene, R. Asakaviciute, A. Miezeliene, G. Alencikiene, L. Ivanauskas, V. Jakstas,
P. Viskelis and A. Razukas, Effect of farming systems on the yield, quality parameters and
sensory properties of conventionally and organically grown potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)
tubers, Food chemistry, 145 (2014), 903-909.
[25] R. Tobin, S. Moane and T. Larkin, Sensory evaluation of organic and conventional fruits and
vegetables available to Irish consumers, International Journal of Food Science &
Technology, 48 (2013), 157-162.
[26] M. Renna, F. Di Gioia, B. Leoni, C. Mininni and P. Santamaria, Culinary Assessment of
Self-Produced Microgreens as Basic Ingredients in Sweet and Savory Dishes, Journal of
culinary science & technology, 15 (2017), 126-142.
[27] N. Sharma, S. Acharya, K. Kumar, N. Singh and O. Chaurasia, Hydroponics as an advanced
technique for vegetable production: An overview, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,
17 (2018), 364-371.
[28] R. Shepherd, Factors influencing food preferences and choice, in Handbook of the
psychophysiology of human eating, ed. R. Shepherd, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, (1989),
pp. 3-24.
[29] G. Ares, A. Giménez and R. Deliza, Influence of three non-sensory factors on consumer
choice of functional yogurts over regular ones, Food Quality and Preference, 21 (2010), 361-
367.
[30] J. Cranfield, S. Henson and J. Blandon, The effect of attitudinal and sociodemographic
factors on the likelihood of buying locally produced food, Agribusiness, 28 (2012), 205-221.
[31] J. Prescott, O. Young, L. O'neill, N. Yau and R. Stevens, Motives for food choice: a
comparison of consumers from Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia and New Zealand, Food quality and
preference, 13 (2002), 489-495.
[32] M. Massey, A. O'Cass and P. Otahal, A meta-analytic study of the factors driving the
purchase of organic food, Appetite, 125 (2018), 418-427.
[33] Y. Namkung and S. Jang, Does food quality really matter in restaurants? Its impact on
customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
31 (2007), 387-409.

21
[34] J. C. Sweeney, G. N. Soutar and L. W. Johnson, The role of perceived risk in the quality-
value relationship: a study in a retail environment, Journal of retailing, 75 (1999), 77-105.
[35] A. R. Rao and K. B. Monroe, The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue utilization in
product evaluations, Journal of consumer research, 15 (1988), 253-264.
[36] W. B. Dodds and K. B. Monroe, The effect of brand and price information on subjective
product evaluations, ACR North American Advances (1985).
[37]K. B. Monroe and J. D. Chapman, Framing effects on buyers' subjective product evaluations,
ACR North American Advances (1987).
[38] V. A. Zeithaml, Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and
synthesis of evidence, Journal of marketing, 52 (1988), 2-22.
[39] M. McEachern, C. Seaman, S. Padel and C. Foster, Exploring the gap between attitudes and
behaviour, British food journal (2005).

22
Figure Captions

Figure 1. The conceptual model of the study.

Figure 2. Pictures of broccoli microgreen samples from a commercial grocery store grown

hydroponically (commercial-hydroponic), from the local farm grown hydroponically (farm-

hydroponic), and from the local farm grown in soil (farm-soil), reprinted from from Tan et al.

(2019) [14], with permission from Elsevier.

Highlights:
• Farm microgreens showed better sensory scores than commercial sample
• Sensory and perceived benefits positively impact purchase intention of microgreens
• Pricing had impact on perceived product benefits, but not on willingness-to-buy
Conflict of Interest

The authors confirm that they have no conflict of interest to declare for this publication.