Sensory Analysis for the Development of Meat Products: Methodological Aspects and Practical Applications

Sensory Analysis for the Development of Meat Products: Methodological Aspects and Practical Applications highlights the application of sensory analysis in the development of meat products. It presents the background and historical aspects of sensory evaluation on the characterization and development of meat products. Divided into two sections, the book discusses fundamental concepts, methodological approaches, statistical analysis, innovative methods, and presents case studies using these approaches. Chapter include definitions, applications, literature reviews, recent developments, methods and end of chapter glossaries. Researchers in sensory analysis and meat processing, as well as new product developers, will benefit from this comprehensive resource on the topics discussed.

• Discusses the use of sensory analysis as a tool for the development of meat products
• Explores characterization, quality, processing, new ingredients, shelf life, consumer studies, and the health aspects of meat products, with a special focus on sensory attributes
• Contains case studies that highlight sensory approaches and methods in the context of meat products

• Language: English
• Publisher: Elsevier Science
• Release date: Jan 25, 2022
• ISBN: 9780323903189

Book preview

9780323903189_FC

Sensory Analysis for the Development of Meat Products

Methodological Aspects and Practical Applications

First Edition

Jóse Manuel Lorenzo

Centro Tecnológico de la Carne de Galicia, Ourense, Spain

Universidade Vigo, Spain

Mirian Pateiro

Centro Tecnológico de la Carne de Galicia, Ourense, Spain

Erick Saldaña

Research Professor, Universidad Nacional de Moquegua, Moquegua, Peru

Paulo E.S. Munekata

Centro Tecnológico de la Carne de Galicia, Ourense, Spain

Image 1

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Copyright

Contributors

1: Historical perspective of sensory analysis for the development of meat products: A contemporary challenge

Abstract

Acknowledgments

1.1: Historical of sensory analysis and meat science areas

1.2: Main aspects of sensory perception

1.3: Current challenges in the meat industry

References

Section 1: Methodological aspects of sensory analysis of meat products

2: Necessary considerations for sensory evaluation of meat products: Quality indicators of meat products

Abstract

Acknowledgments

2.1: Introduction

2.2: Sensory tests and attributes of quality from meat products

2.3: Relationship with assessor and sample preparation

2.4: Conclusions

References

3: Descriptive sensory analysis as an analytical tool for the sensory characterization of meat products: Fundaments, panel training, and descriptors of meat products

Abstract

Acknowledgments

3.1: Introduction

3.2: Fundaments and methods of descriptive analysis

3.3: Panel training

3.4: Descriptors of meat product

References

4: Alternative descriptive methods answered by consumers for the sensory characterization of meat products: Fundaments and methods

Abstract

4.1: Introduction

4.2: Rapid descriptive techniques

4.3: Emotional descriptive methods

References

Section 2: Practical applications of sensory analysis for development of meat products

5: Descriptive sensory analysis of meat—The baseline for any sensory innovation for meat products: Case study

Abstract

Acknowledgments

5.1: Introduction

5.2: Sensory attributes of quality fresh meat

5.3: Development of new meat products

5.4: Final remarks

References

6: Check-all-that-apply method to develop low-sodium sausages: A case study

Abstract

6.1: Introduction

6.2: Case study 1: Characterization of the sensory profile of low-sodium fermented sausages by CATA methodology (Dos Santos et al., 2015)

6.3: Case study 2: Sensory profile of Bologna-type sausages made with high KCl levels and addition of arginine and histidine (da Silva et al., 2020)

6.4: Case study 3: Sensory profile of Bologna-type sausages with 50% replacement of NaCl by KCl and addition of lysine and liquid smoke as flavor enhancers (dos Santos Alves et al., 2017)

6.5: Final remarks

References

7: Using rate-all-that-apply (RATA) methodology to include the consumer insights in the development of healthier beef burgers

Abstract

Acknowledgments

7.1: Introduction

7.2: Theoretical framework

7.3: Practical aspects

7.4: Case study

References

8: Flash Profile for the characterization of beef burger: A case study

Abstract

Acknowledgments

8.1: Introduction

8.2: Flash Profile to measure sensory characteristics of food products

8.3: Flash Profile in practice

8.4: Case study: Flash Profile on beef burger

8.5: Results

8.6: Pros and cons of the Flash Profile

8.7: Conclusions

References

9: Projective mapping in the development of sausages: A case study

Abstract

9.1: Introduction

9.2: Theoretical framework

9.3: Practical aspects

9.4: Case study: Projective Mapping of Vienna sausages

9.5: Results

9.6: Pros and cons of Projective Mapping or Napping

9.7: Conclusions

References

10: Free sorting task method to optimize the development of smoked bacon: A case study

Abstract

10.1: Introduction

10.2: Free sorting task results: A case study of smoked bacon

10.3: Results

10.4: Pros and cons of the free sorting task

10.5: Conclusions

References

11: Consumer opinion about smoked bacon using Twitter and textual analysis: The challenge continues

Abstract

11.1: Introduction

11.2: Theoretical framework

11.3: Practical aspects: Lexicometric analysis of tweets

11.4: Case study: Lexicometric analysis of the word #bacon

11.5: Pros and cons of the lexicometric analysis of tweets

11.6: Conclusions

References

12: An emotional approach to beef evaluation by Brazilian consumers using sensory and consumer science

Abstract

12.1: Introduction

12.2: Practical aspects for the measurement of emotions using questionnaires

12.3: Development of emotion questionnaires for specific products

12.4: Case study: Emotions evoked by beef consumption using rate-all-that-apply

12.5: Pros and cons

12.6: Conclusions

References

13: Temporal dominance of sensation (TDS) as a tool to understand the sensory dynamic during multiintake of burger

Abstract

13.1: Introduction

13.2: A case study with burgers

13.3: Results and discussion

13.4: Multivariate representation of samples based on dominant attributes

13.5: Temporal drivers of liking (TDL)

13.6: Conclusions

References

Further reading

14: Dynamic profile to optimize the addition of preservatives in dry-cured meat products

Abstract

14.1: Introduction

14.2: Temporal tests

14.3: TDS methodology

14.4: Conclusion

References

Index

Copyright

Woodhead Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier

50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-0-12-822832-6 (print)

ISBN: 978-0-323-90318-9 (online)

For information on all Woodhead publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Image 1

Publisher: Nikki P. Levy

Acquisitions Editor: Megan R. Ball

Editorial Project Manager: Hilary Carr

Production Project Manager: Debasish Ghosh

Cover Designer: Miles Hitchen

Typeset by STRAIVE, India

Contributors

Jorge Behrens     University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil

Ada Braghieri     Università Degli Studi Della Basilicata, Scuola di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali, Alimentari ed Ambientali, Potenza, Italy

Giovana Thomaz Braz     Centro de Ciências da Natureza, Campus Lagoa do Sino, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Buri, SP, Brazil

Paulo Cezar Bastianello Campagnol     Department of Food Science and Technology (DTCA), Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Carmen J. Contreras-Castillo     Departamento de Agroindústria, Alimentos e Nutrição (LAN), Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz (ESALQ), Universidade de São Paulo (USP), Piracicaba City, SP, Brazil

Maria Di Cairano     Università Degli Studi Della Basilicata, Scuola di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali, Alimentari ed Ambientali, Potenza, Italy

Alexandre José Cichoski     Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Yemina Karen Diaz-Valencia     Universidad Nacional de San Agustín de Arequipa, Arequipa, Perú

Rubén Domínguez     Centro Tecnológico de la Carne de Galicia, Adva. Galicia n° 4, Parque Tecnológico de Galicia, San Cibrao das Viñas, Ourense, Spain

Bibiana Alves dos Santos     Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Priscila Robertina dos Santos-Donado     Departamento de Agroindústria, Alimentos e Nutrição (LAN), Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz (ESALQ), Universidade de São Paulo (USP), Piracicaba City, SP, Brazil

Mario Estévez     IPROCAR Research Institute, TECAL Research Group, University of Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain

Maria João Fraqueza     CIISA-Centro de Investigação Interdisciplinar em Sanidade Animal, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade de Lisboa, Avenida da Universidade Técnica, Lisboa, Portugal

Maria Freire     IPROCAR Research Institute, TECAL Research Group, University of Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain

Alberto Gonzalez-Mohíno     IPROCAR Research Institute, TECAL Research Group, University of Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain

Natan de Jesus Pimentel-Filho     Centro de Ciências da Natureza, Campus Lagoa do Sino, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Buri, SP, Brazil

José Manuel Lorenzo

Centro Tecnológico de la Carne de Galicia, Adva. Galicia n° 4, Parque Tecnológico de Galicia, San Cibrao das Viñas

Área de Tecnología de los Alimentos, Facultad de Ciencias de Ourense, Universidade de Vigo, Ourense, Spain

Mariana Marinho Martins     Departamento de Agroindústria, Alimentos e Nutrição (LAN), Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz (ESALQ), Universidade de São Paulo (USP), Piracicaba City, SP, Brazil

Beatriz Schmidt Menegali     Departamento de Agroindústria, Alimentos e Nutrição (LAN), Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz (ESALQ), Universidade de São Paulo (USP), Piracicaba City, SP, Brazil

Thais Cardoso Merlo     Departamento de Agroindústria, Alimentos e Nutrição (LAN), Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz (ESALQ), Universidade de São Paulo (USP), Piracicaba City, SP, Brazil

Paulo E.S. Munekata     Centro Tecnológico de la Carne de Galicia, Adva. Galicia n° 4, Parque Tecnológico de Galicia, San Cibrao das Viñas, Ourense, Spain

Fabio Napolitano     Università Degli Studi Della Basilicata, Scuola di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali, Alimentari ed Ambientali, Potenza, Italy

Lary Souza Olegario     Post-Graduate Program in Food Science and Technology, Department of Food Engineering, Technology Center, Federal University of Paraiba, João Pessoa, Paraiba, Brazil

Mirian Pateiro     Centro Tecnológico de la Carne de Galicia, Adva. Galicia n° 4, Parque Tecnológico de Galicia, San Cibrao das Viñas, Ourense, Spain

Iliani Patinho     Departamento de Agroindústria, Alimentos e Nutrição (LAN), Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz (ESALQ), Universidade de São Paulo (USP), Piracicaba City, SP, Brazil

Adriana A. Pazos     Instituto de Investigación Tecnología de Alimentos, INTA, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Laura Purriños     Centro Tecnológico de la Carne de Galicia, Adva. Galicia n° 4, Parque Tecnológico de Galicia, San Cibrao das Viñas, Ourense, Spain

Juan D. Rios-Mera     Facultad de Ingeniería Pesquera y de Alimentos, Universidad Nacional San Luis Gonzaga de Ica (UNICA), Ica, Peru

Marcelo Rosmini     Department of Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Science, National University of Litoral, Esperanza, Argentina

Erick Saldaña     Escuela Profesional de Ingeniería Agroindustrial, Universidad Nacional de Moquegua, Moquegua, Peru

Eva M. Santos     Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Área Académica de Química, Mineral de la Reforma, Pachuca, Mexico

Miriam M. Selani     Centro de Ciências da Natureza, Campus Lagoa do Sino, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Buri, SP, Brazil

Néstor Sepúlveda     Centro de Tecnología e Innovación de la Carne, Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias y Forestales, Center of Biotechnology on Reproduction, Scientific and Technological Bioresource Nucleus, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile

Andrea C.S. Barretto     Department of Food Technology and Engineering, UNESP—São Paulo State University, São José do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil

Alfredo Teixeira     Escola Superior Agrária, Instituto Politécnico de Bragança—Centro de Investigação de Montanha (CIMO), Bragança, Portugal

Dominique Valentin     Centre des Sciences du Goût et de l’Alimentation, Dijon, France

Marta Sonia Ventanas     IPROCAR Research Institute, TECAL Research Group, University of Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain

1: Historical perspective of sensory analysis for the development of meat products: A contemporary challenge

Paulo E.S. Munekataa; Mirian Pateiroa; Rubén Domíngueza; Néstor Sepúlvedab; Eva M. Santosc; José Manuel Lorenzoa,d    a Centro Tecnológico de la Carne de Galicia, Adva. Galicia n° 4, Parque Tecnológico de Galicia, San Cibrao das Viñas, Ourense, Spain

b Centro de Tecnología e Innovación de la Carne, Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias y Forestales, Center of Biotechnology on Reproduction, Scientific and Technological Bioresource Nucleus, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile

c Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Área Académica de Química, Mineral de la Reforma, Pachuca, Mexico

d Área de Tecnología de los Alimentos, Facultad de Ciencias de Ourense, Universidade de Vigo, Ourense, Spain

Abstract

Sensory analysis is one of the core pillars of food science. The advances made in the last century greatly assisted in the study and production of foods. From a historical perspective, sensory analysis has gradually grown from an intrinsic concept of food to be stablished as a solid and have a central role in food science area. The area of meat and meat products is a relevant sector for sensory analysis application due to the core role played by these foods in the nutrition of mankind. This chapter presents the historical events of sensory analysis and meat science, the main concepts involved in sensory perception, and the current challenges in meat and meat product area that have meaningful connections with sensory analysis.

Keywords

Fresh meat; Meat and meat products; Historical events; Current challenges; Sensory perception

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the GAIN (Axencia Galega de Innovación) for supporting this work (grant number IN607A2019/01) and Programa Iberoamericano de Ciencia y Tecnología para el Desarrollo (CYTED): Productos Cárnicos Más Saludables (Healthy Meat) network (ref. 119RT0568).

1.1: Historical of sensory analysis and meat science areas

Sensory analysis can be seen as useful set of tools that can greatly assist researchers and professionals in the food industry to understand the responses associated with the consumption of a given food. The core steps to sensorially evaluate foods (such as meats and meat products) consist in providing standardize samples in a controlled environment to panelists, measure the evoked emotions and feelings with qualitative and/or quantitative tests, and analyze and interpret the results (Lawless and Heymann, 2010). The sensory analysis (Fig. 1.1) has its origin in the end of 19th century when the researchers of the related areas (which today comprise the pillars of sensory analysis) initiated to explore the physiological, metabolic, physical, and food-related aspects to this discipline (Moskowitz, 1993). The fundaments of the current sensory analysis (a science centered in the interaction of human sensations with food) originated with a change in the perspective about the functioning of human mind. Introspection (the examination of emotions and thoughts) became an important aspect to pave the first steps of sensory analysis by providing a more detailed overview of the perception of external stimuli by the sense organs: eyes, ears, nose, and tongue (Boring, 1942; Moskowitz, 1993).

Fig. 1.1

Fig. 1.1 Main historical events in sensory analysis and meat science (up to 1961).

An important event in the history of sensory analysis is the realization of food contests. In these meetings, individuals or groups compete to score selected foods in terms of preestablished parameters. Invited experts also evaluated the foods and gave their scores as well. Then, those contestants with scores closest to experts are awarded. These events were important occasions to spread the knowledge about the sensory attributes, especially in the United States. Delegates from different universities and colleges are trained under the supervision of professors and are sent to the competition. For instance, the Collegiate Dairy Products Judging Contest is an event carried out since 1916 and contestants with accurate sensory perceptions in the evaluation of dairy products are awarded. Some of the attributes evaluated are flavor, texture, and appearance of milk. Dairy products were gradually incorporated in the contest: butter (included in 1916), 2% fluid milk (1917), cheddar cheese (1917), vanilla ice cream (1926), cottage cheese (1962), and strawberry-flavored Swiss-style yogurt (1977) (Dairy Products Contest, 2021; Trout and Prescott, 1963).

In a similar way, awards are also attributed to foods due to their unique sensory characteristics. In this case, experts compose a sensory evaluation panel and judge coded samples of foods according to specific attributes. The Concours General Agricole Paris Wine Competition (CGAPWC; stand-alone event since 1964) is a relevant example of the importance of sensory analysis in the evaluation of food quality. In this event, wine producers submit their products to a large expert panel (sommeliers). Once scores are computed, each wine is ranked as gold, silver, and bronze. A similar ranking strategy has been used by Decanter in the Decanter World Wine Award (since 2004). In this event, wines are categorized into the following categories: platinum, gold, silver, and bronze (Decanter, 2021; Ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, 2021; Wine-search, 2021).

An important marker in the sensory analysis and food industry history is the post-World War II period. Once conflicts were ceased, the increase in food production and commercialization were part of economic boom. During this period, mass consumption of all types of foods led to a proportional increase in competition among companies and the necessity to stand out among the several similar products and prevail in the market. Taste and convenience were some of the main factors actively explored in this period leading to increasing attention to food properties and the relation between consumers and food characteristics (Silva et al., 2018; Stone and Sidel, 2004).

As the sensory analysis progressed as a science and major attention was given to the relations among food properties, sensations derived from food consumption, and the continuity of the company in the market, the generation and discussion of knowledge gained more attention and culminated in the production and publication of books and articles in scientific journals. Sharing, discussing, and staying up to date with developments of sensory evaluation became a necessary part of the activities of professionals in field. However, sensory attributes were considered as essential quality indicator among all quality attributes rather than an independent and central pillar of food evaluation in the early stages of scientific communications in food science (beginning of the 19th century) (Bagnold, 1826; Journal of the Franklin Institute, 1827).

Later in the early decades of the 20th century, the main and most relevant advances led to the formalization of sensory analysis in food science, especially between 1950 and 1960. The first publications about sensory methods dates back to 1936–1940, a method (paired difference) to compare tenderness of meat (Cover, 1936, 1940). As the popularity of sensory analysis begun to grow among researchers and professionals in the food industry, more methods were gradually developed such as triangle test (Gray et al., 1947), ranking test (Handschumaker, 1948), descriptive analysis (flavor profile) (Caul, 1957), time intensity methods (initially developed in 1937 and formalized in the 1950s) (Holway and Hurvich, 1937; Neilson, 1957), free-choice profiling (Williams and Langron, 1984), free sorting profile (Lawless, 1989), open-ended question test (Boustani and Mitchell, 1990; Looker et al., 1989), flash profile (Delarue and Sieffermann, 2004), napping profile (Pagès, 2005), check-all-that-apply (CATA) (Adams et al., 2007), and polarized sensory positioning test (Teillet et al., 2010).

It was later in the 1960s (Fig. 1.2) when the first journals dedicated to sensory and directly related journals were created to publish studies about the physiological and psychological response to foods at animal and human level (normal consumption and eating disorders); influence of cultural, geographical, environmental, and social factors; development and optimization of methods; consumer preference and acceptability; development of lexicons (vocabulary or terms to describe food); application of theoretical solutions to solve real problems; metabolites associated with the reception of stimuli; and sensations in sensory structures, for instance, historical influence of food in cultures in the form of letters, research notes, original articles, and review articles (Elsevier, 2021a,b; John Wiley and Sons, 2021a,b; Oxford Academic, 2020; Springer, 2021).

Fig. 1.1

Fig. 1.2 Main historical events in sensory analysis and meat science (from 1963 to recent years).

The generation and scientific consensus in terms of application of methods to evaluate food led to the production of standard methods by independent and international organizations such as ISO and ASTM that aimed to standardize the preparation and execution of methods, and data interpretation (ASTM, 2021c; ISO, 2021c). These organizations published the first standard methods (and continuous to revise them as new advances are made) in the 1980s (ASTM, 2021a,b; ISO, 2021a,b).

The evolution of sensory analysis during the last century up to recent days has also occurred in accordance with technological development. Characterizing properties and aspects related to identification of compounds associated with sensory attributes became an important aspect in food science. Chromatography and sensor development played central roles in the history of sensory analysis. The separation of compounds from a complex mixture (with posterior identification and quantification) leads to detailed understanding of the complexity of molecules inducing sensorial responses during food consumption. From a historical perspective, development of liquid chromatography dates back to 1941 and gas chromatography to 1952 (James and Martin, 1952; Martin and Synge, 1941).

Once technology evolved, assembling of equipment to mimic sensory perception also occurred. In this case, the development of the first equipment to mimic smelling was reported in 1961 (Moncrieff, 1961). The main justification to support the development of equipment is the acquisition of objective data from foods. The development of the texturometer was reported for the first time in 1963 (Friedman et al., 1963; Szczesniak et al., 1963) and the first equipment for digital analysis of food in 1964 (Wilkens and Hartman, 1964). It was later in 1982 when the development of sensors facilitated the development of the first electronic nose (Persaud and Dodd, 1982). The first electronic tongue was developed in 1995 (Vlasov et al., 2000). Although technological advance has been providing important scientific support for the advances made in the area of sensory analysis, but no current equipment can replace a panelist.

Meat has been consumed by mankind since immemorial time as a source of proteins, fatty acids, vitamins, and other nutrients. The scientific advances in meat, animal production, and processing areas are relatively recent and were mainly intensified in the 20th century. The studies about carcass composition, meat quality, and meat processing initiated in the period between 1940s and 1950s. In the 1950s and 1960s, the aim was to deepen the understanding of meat quality, processing, components, commercialization, and the relation with consumers by applying the knowledge of the basic (biochemistry, histology, and microbiology) and related sciences (marketing, food science, and sensory evaluation). However, the main advances about the integration of knowledge about animal production, muscle physiology, microbiology, and postmortem biochemistry and transformations occurred in the 1970s. It was in the 1980s when the hormones and hormone-like compounds were studied in the context of animal production. The intensification of studies about muscle cell cultures and recombinant DNA techniques were initiated in the 1990s (American Meat Science Association, 2019b). Additionally, professionals and researchers in the areas of meat science and animal production have also been organizing activities to improve the cooperation among animal producers, researchers, and organizations, which favor the scientific research and the application of advances in animal production (American Meat Science Association, 2019a; European Federation of Animal Science, 2020).

Particularly, the journals dedicated to the meat science and animal production area have been publishing scientific advances since 1910 (Oxford Academic, 2021). These journals cover the scientific advances in topics of animal production about genetics, physiology, management and welfare, health, nutrition, reproduction; meat quality, processing, muscle biology, and biochemistry; processing and meat product quality; food safety; human nutrition aspects; development of analytical methods, technologies, and procedures; sensory evaluation; and consumer science and marketing (American Meat Science Association, 2019c; Cambridge University Press, 2021; Elsevier, 2021c,d; Oxford Academic, 2021).

1.2: Main aspects of sensory perception

Sensory analysis, as a scientific discipline, aims to characterize (qualitatively and quantitatively) the responses derived from the consumption of foods. The general strategy involved in the sensory evaluation of food involves the search for specific answers derived from theoretical and practical conditions related to food production, storage, and consumption. Human senses (sight, smell, touch, hearing, and taste) are stimulated by specific physiological mechanisms that lead to an experience with multiple psychological effects around the consumption of food (expectation, actual food consumption, and posterior felling) (Cardello, 1996).

The visual assessment of food is the first step to decide if a food is worth purchasing (consumers in a food store or in a restaurant) or consumption (consumers in home). The concept of eating with the eyes (from a photo in a menu, package illustration and information, or in the moment before food consumption) is an important factor that affects the decision to consume food. Visual information assists in the assessment of the information associated with the food and creates an expectation around its consumption. Essentially, a food that catches the eye of the consumer tends to be perceived as more desirable. This process is almost automatic with minimal reasoning about the cues affecting food consumption (Stelick and Dando, 2018; Vermeir and Roose, 2020).

The smell of food is another cue affecting the expectation about the consumption of food. Sniffing brings air with odor-active compounds (OAC) to the nostrils where the olfactory bulb transforms the interaction of olfactory receptors with OAC into signals. Consequently, the activity of cortex neurons is induced, which ultimately leads to odor perception (Teixeira et al., 2016). It is important to consider that the exposure of olfactory bulb to OAC can also affect its structure. The plasticity of this neural structure is limited but can lead to changes in the perception of odors, alter discrimination capacity, and is involved in the odor-reward association learning as well as the formation of memories (Mandairon and Linster, 2009).

Each food is comprised of a unique combination of OAC that induce sensations that can be described by a lexicon. Some examples of these compounds are displayed in Table 1.1, which relates each compound to a specific odor descriptor. The complex composition of OAC found in food products is composed of many classes of compounds. A relevant example of this variety of compounds is mushrooms. The OAC profile of wild edible Nordic mushrooms (Boletus edulis, Lactarius camphoratus, Cantharellus cibarius, and Craterellus tubaeformis) was reported in a recent study (Aisala et al., 2019). The authors of the study indicated that aldehydes and ketones, which included heptanal (associated with solvent odor), (E)-2-nonenal (cucumber), octanal (citrus), and (E,E)-2,4-decadienal (fat), were the main OAC found in wild mushrooms. The identification of OAC found in olive oil indicated acetaldehyde (fresh and green), propanal (fruity), 2-methylbutanal (malty), 3-methylbutanal (malty), and 1-penten-3-one (pungent) as well as compounds derived from lipid oxidation as predominant molecules associated with the quality of this food (Neugebauer et al., 2020).

Table 1.1