In this study, the influence of phenolic compounds on the sensory scores attributed to extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) by panel test was investigated. Two model olive oils (MOOs) with identical concentrations of volatile compounds, differing only in the amount of biophenols (297 vs. 511 mg kg−1), were analysed by two official panels and by SPME-GC/MS. Six other MOOs set up by the two previous models were also tested and analysed. They were formulated separately with the addition of three off-flavours (‘rancid’, ‘winey–vinegary’ and ‘fusty–muddy’). While high levels of EVOO phenolic compounds did not produce any effect on the headspace concentration of volatile compounds, they did affect the scores of both positive and negative sensory attributes of EVOO, due to the well-known in-mouth interactions between EVOO phenols, saliva and volatile compounds. In particular, a decrease of about 39% in the positive fruity score was found in the presence of a higher concentration of phenols. Regarding EVOO off-flavours, the higher level of phenolic compounds decreased by about 23% the score of ‘fusty–muddy’ defect and increased the score of ‘winey–vinegary’ defect about 733%. No important effect of EVOO phenolics on the perceived intensity of the ‘rancid’ defect was found. These findings could be helpful in explaining some discrepancies of panel test responses observed during extra virgin olive oil shelf life.

Biophenolic compounds influence the in-mouth perceived intensity of virgin olive oil flavours and off-flavours / Genovese, A.; Mondola, F.; Paduano, A.; Sacchi, R.. - In: MOLECULES. - ISSN 1420-3049. - 25:8(2020), p. 1969. [10.3390/molecules25081969]

Biophenolic compounds influence the in-mouth perceived intensity of virgin olive oil flavours and off-flavours

Genovese A.
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
Paduano A.;Sacchi R.
2020

Abstract

In this study, the influence of phenolic compounds on the sensory scores attributed to extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) by panel test was investigated. Two model olive oils (MOOs) with identical concentrations of volatile compounds, differing only in the amount of biophenols (297 vs. 511 mg kg−1), were analysed by two official panels and by SPME-GC/MS. Six other MOOs set up by the two previous models were also tested and analysed. They were formulated separately with the addition of three off-flavours (‘rancid’, ‘winey–vinegary’ and ‘fusty–muddy’). While high levels of EVOO phenolic compounds did not produce any effect on the headspace concentration of volatile compounds, they did affect the scores of both positive and negative sensory attributes of EVOO, due to the well-known in-mouth interactions between EVOO phenols, saliva and volatile compounds. In particular, a decrease of about 39% in the positive fruity score was found in the presence of a higher concentration of phenols. Regarding EVOO off-flavours, the higher level of phenolic compounds decreased by about 23% the score of ‘fusty–muddy’ defect and increased the score of ‘winey–vinegary’ defect about 733%. No important effect of EVOO phenolics on the perceived intensity of the ‘rancid’ defect was found. These findings could be helpful in explaining some discrepancies of panel test responses observed during extra virgin olive oil shelf life.
2020
Biophenolic compounds influence the in-mouth perceived intensity of virgin olive oil flavours and off-flavours / Genovese, A.; Mondola, F.; Paduano, A.; Sacchi, R.. - In: MOLECULES. - ISSN 1420-3049. - 25:8(2020), p. 1969. [10.3390/molecules25081969]
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Genovese et al., 2020 (Molecules).pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Documento in Post-print
Licenza: Dominio pubblico
Dimensione 794.29 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
794.29 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11588/805081
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 10
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 11
social impact