Volatile Composition, Sensory Profile and Consumer Acceptability of HydroSOStainable Table Olives
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Plant Material and Experimental Design
- control (T0), trees were fully irrigated, to avoid any water stress;
- moderate deficit irrigation (T1), the threshold value for water stress level (Ψstem) was set up at −2 MPa during pit hardening stage;
- severe deficit irrigation (short time) (T2), the threshold value for Ψstem was set up at −3 MPa during half period of pit hardening stage; and,
- severe deficit irrigation (long time) (T3), the threshold value for Ψstem was −3 MPa until the end of the period of pit hardening stage.
2.2. Spanish-style Processing
2.3. Volatile Compounds
2.4. Sensory Analysis
2.4.1. Descriptive Sensory Evaluation
2.4.2. Consumer Acceptance
2.4.3. Consumer Willingness to Pay
2.5. Statistical Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Irrigation
3.2. Volatile Compounds
3.3. Descriptive Sensory Analysis
3.4. Consumer Acceptance
3.5. Driving Sensory Attributes
3.6. Consumer Willingness to Pay
3.7. Penalty Analysis
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wei, S.; Ang, T.; Jancenelle, V.E. Willingness to pay more for green products: The interplay of consumer characteristics and customer participation. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 45, 230–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cano-Lamadrid, M.; Girón, I.F.; Pleite, R.; Burló, F.; Corell, M.; Moriana, A.; Carbonell-Barrachina, A.A. Quality attributes of table olives as affected by regulated deficit irrigation. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 62, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Noguera-Artiaga, L.; Lipan, L.; Vázquez-Araújo, L.; Barber, X.; Pérez-López, D.; Carbonell-Barrachina, Á.A. Opinion of Spanish Consumers on Hydrosustainable Pistachios. J. Food Sci. 2016, 81, S2559–S2565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Corell, M.; Martín-Palomo, M.J.; Sánchez-Bravo, P.; Carrillo, T.; Collado, J.; Hernández-García, F.; Girón, I.; Andreu, L.; Galindo, A.; López-Moreno, Y.E.; et al. Evaluation of growers´effort to improve the sustainability of olive orchards: Development of the hydroSOStainable index. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 257, 108661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marsilio, V.; d’Andria, R.; Lanza, B.; Russi, F.; Iannucci, E.; Lavini, A.; Morelli, G. Effect of irrigation and lactic acid on the phenolic fraction, fermentation and sensory characteristics of olive (Olea europaea L. cv. Ascolana tenera) fruits. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2006, 86, 1005–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Andria, R.; Lavini, A.; Morelli, G.; Sebastiani, L.; Tognetti, R. Physiological and productive responses of Olea europaea L. cultivars Frantoio and Leccino to a regulated deficit irrigation regime. Plant. Biosyst. 2009, 143, 222–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez-Rico, A.; Salvador, M.D.; Fregapane, G. Virgin olive oil and fruit minor constituents as affected by irrigation management based on SWP and TDF as compared to ETc in medium-density young olive orchards (Olea europaea L. cv. Cornicabra and Morisca). Food Res. Int. 2009, 42, 1067–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baccouri, O.; Guerfel, M.; Bonoli-Carbognin, M.; Cerretani, L.; Bendini, A.; Zarrouk, M.; Daoud, D. Influence of irrigation and site of cultivation on qualitative and sensory characteristics of a Tunisian minor olive variety (cv. Marsaline). Riv. Ital. Sostanze Grasse 2009, 86, 173–180. [Google Scholar]
- Collado-González, J.; Moriana, A.; Girón, I.F.; Corell, M.; Medina, S.; Durand, T.; Guy, A.; Galano, J.-M.; Valero, E.; Garrigues, T.; et al. The phytoprostane content in green table olives is influenced by Spanish-style processing and regulated deficit irrigation. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 64, 997–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corell, M.; Martín-Palomo, M.J.; Pérez-López, D.; Centeno, A.; Girón, I.; Moreno, F.; Torrecillas, A.; Moriana, A. Approach for using trunk growth rate (TGR) in the irrigation scheduling of table olive orchards. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 192, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corell, M.; Pérez-López, D.; Martín-Palomo, M.J.; Centeno, A.; Girón, I.; Galindo, A.; Moreno, M.M.; Moreno, C.; Memmi, H.; Torrecillas, A.; et al. Comparison of the water potential baseline in different locations. Usefulness for irrigation scheduling of olive orchards. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 177, 308–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaya, Ü.; Öztürk Güngör, F.; Çamoğlu, G.; Akkuzu, E.; Aşik, Ş.; Köseoğlu, O. Effect of Deficit Irrigation Regimes on Yield and Fruit Quality of Olive Trees (cv. Memecik) on the Aegean Coast of Turkey. Irrig. Drain. 2017, 66, 820–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martorana, A.; Miceli, C.; Alfonzo, A.; Settanni, L.; Gaglio, R.; Caruso, T.; Moschetti, G.; Francesca, N. Effects of irrigation treatments on the quality of table olives produced with the Greek-style process. Ann. Microbiol. 2016, 67, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cano-Lamadrid, M.; Hernández, F.; Corell, M.; Burló, F.; Legua, P.; Moriana, A.; Carbonell-Barrachina, Á.A. Antioxidant capacity, fatty acids profile, and descriptive sensory analysis of table olives as affected by deficit irrigation. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 97, 444–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez-Rodríguez, L.; Lipan, L.; Andreu, L.; Martín-Palomo, M.J.; Carbonell-Barrachina, Á.A.; Hernández, F.; Sendra, E. Effect of regulated deficit irrigation on the quality of raw and table olives. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 221, 415–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lipan, L.; Cano-Lamadrid, M.; Corell, M.; Sendra, E.; Hernandez, F.; Stan, L.; Vodnar, D.C.; Vazquez-Araujo, L.; Carbonell-Barrachina, A.A. Sensory Profile and Acceptability of HydroSOStainable Almonds. Foods 2019, 8, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myers, B.J. Water stress integral-a link between short-term stress and long-term growth. Tree Physiol. 1988, 4, 315–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez-Rodríguez, L.; Corell, M.; Hernández, F.; Sendra, E.; Moriana, A.; Carbonell-Barrachina, Á.A. Effect of Spanish-style processing on the quality attributes of HydroSOStainable green olives. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 1804–1811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Olive Oil Council (IOOC). Method for the Sensory Analysis of Table Olives; International Olive Oil Council: Madrid, Spain, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Angerosa, F.; Servili, M.; Selvaggini, R.; Taticchi, A.; Esposto, S.; Montedoro, G. Volatile compounds in virgin olive oil: Occurrence and their relationship with the quality. J. Chromatogr. A 2004, 1054, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brahmi, F.; Chehab, H.; Flamini, G.; Dhibi, M.; Issaoui, M.; Mastouri, M.; Hammami, M. Effects of irrigation regimes on fatty acid composition, antioxidant and antifungal properties of volatiles from fruits of Koroneiki cultivar grown under Tunisian conditions. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2013, 16, 1469–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SAFC; Sigma-Aldrich. Flavors & Fragances; Sigma-Aldrich: Madrid, Spain, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Bollani, L.; Bonadonna, A.; Peira, G. The Millennials’ Concept of Sustainability in the Food Sector. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Narayanan, P.; Chinnasamy, B.; Jin, L.; Clark, S. Use of just-about-right scales and penalty analysis to determine appropriate concentrations of stevia sweeteners for vanilla yogurt. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 3262–3272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sample | Min Ψstem (MPa) | SI (MPa × Day) | Water Applied (mm) |
---|---|---|---|
ANOVA† | |||
* | ** | NS | |
Multiple Range Tukey Test‡ | |||
T0 | −2.16 a | 17.5 b | 274.3 |
T1 | −3.07 b,c | 45.4 a,b | 294.9 |
T2 | −2.44 a,b | 31.3 a,b | 347.7 |
T3 | −3.69 c | 69.2 a | 105.1 |
Compounds | Chemical Family | Ions | RI | Descriptors § | ANOVA † | Content (%) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
m/z | Exp. | Lit. | T0 | T1 | T2 | T3 | ||||
Ethanol | Alcohol | 45 | 659 | ** | 0.663 b,‡ | 1.135 a | 0.604 b | 0.998 a,b | ||
Dimethylsulfide | Sulfur compound | 62/47 | 679 | Green, sulfurous | * | 0.221 c | 0.552 b | 1.063 a | 0.285 c | |
Ethyl acetate | Ester | 45/61/70/88 | 703 | Pineapple | ** | 1.243 c | 1.856 b | 2.319 a | 2.115 a,b | |
2-Butanol | Alcohol | 45 | 704 | * | 0.690 a | 0.430 a,b | nd c | 0.285 b | ||
Acetic acid | Acid | 45/60 | 724 | Vinegar | *** | 11.86 b | 14.11 a | nd c | 11.03 b | |
Ethyl propionate | Ester | 57 | 746 | 726 | Fruity, pineapple | * | 0.953 b,c | 1.764 a | 1.377 b | 0.737 c |
n-Propyl acetate | Ester | 61/73 | 749 | 728 | Celery | * | 1.105 b,c | 2.040 a | 1.353 b | 0.927 c |
Propanoic acid | Acid | 74/45 | 771 | Dairy, acidic | * | 0.925 a | 0.614 b | 0.217 c | 0.238 c | |
2,4-dimethylhexane | Hydrocarbon | 85/57/71 | 793 | NS | 0.580 | 1.135 | 0.773 b | 0.523 | ||
Ethyl butanoate | Ester | 71 | 812 | 802 | NS | 0.221 | 0.706 | 0.411 | 0.333 | |
Propyl propionate | Ester | 57/75 | 820 | 810 | Oily, fruity | * | 1.022 b | 1.595 a | 1.208 b | 0.713 c |
Butyl acetate | Ester | 56/73 | 827 | 812 | Fruity, greenish | NS | 0.041 | 0.184 | 0.121 | 0.166 |
Ethyl lactate | Ester | 45 | 846 | 813 | Butter, fruity | NS | 0.083 | 0.230 | 0.121 | 0.095 |
Ethyl 2-methyl butanoate | Ester | 57/102/85 | 861 | 846 | NS | 0.124 | 0.368 | 0.242 | 0.190 | |
Ethyl 3-methyl butanoate | Ester | 88/57 | 865 | 859 | NS | 0.124 | 0.199 | 0.145 | 0.166 | |
Isoamyl acetate | Ester | 55/70 | 895 | 878 | Banana, pear | * | 0.041 c | 0.138 a | 0.072 b | 0.048 a |
cis 3-Hexen-1-ol | Alcohol | 67/55/82 | 899 | 902 | Green | *** | 0.097 c | 0.245 a | 0.121 b | 0.119 b |
1-Hexanol | Alcohol | 56/69 | 907 | 912 | Green, woody | ** | 0.069 c | 0.153 a | 0.097 b | 0.143 a |
Propyl butanoate | Ester | 71/89/55 | 914 | 896 | * | 0.152 c | 0.629 a | 0.362 b | 0.119 c | |
β-Myrcene | Terpene | 93/69 | 997 | 992 | Fruity, vegetable | *** | 0.801 | 1.089 | 1.594 | 1.426 |
Ethyl hexanoate | Ester | 88 | 1016 | 1001 | NS | 1.229 | 2.086 | 2.126 | 1.949 | |
D-Limonene | Terpene | 68/93 | 1041 | 1044 | Citrus, lemon | *** | 20.97 b | 20.92 b | 34.44 a | 21.17 b |
p-Cymene | Terpene | 119/134/91 | 1044 | 1030 | Citrus | ** | 3.148 c | 3.896 b,c | 6.449 a | 4.705 b |
γ-Terpinene | Terpene | 93/91/136 | 1069 | 1076 | Herbaceous, citrus | ** | 2.223 b | 2.470 b | 3.913 a | 2.733 a,b |
Methyl cyclohexanecarboxylate | Ester | 55/87 | 1093 | 1056 | Berry, creamy | NS | 5.633 | 2.807 | 1.957 | 3.446 |
Ethyl heptanoate | Ester | 88/115/60 | 1117 | 1095 | Fruity, melon, peach | *** | 0.690 b | 0.890 b | 2.101 a | 2.163 a |
Guaiacol | Phenolic compound | 109/124/81 | 1148 | 1114 | Woody, smoky | *** | 0.318 b | 0.322 b | 0.725 b | 18.560 a |
Ethyl cyclohexanecarboxylate | Ester | 55/83/101 | 1163 | 1170 | *** | 25.81 a | 8.943 c | 10.72 b | 2.614 d | |
p-Cresol | Phenolic compound | 107 | 1180 | Green, woody | *** | 2.844 b | 12.62 a | nd c | 0.285 c | |
2-Phenethylalcohol | Alcohol | 91/107 | 1184 | 1159 | Honey, rose | * | 0.207 | 0.675 | 0.411 | 1.355 |
Cyclohexanecarboxylic acid | Acid | 56/73/45/82 | 1197 | 1157 | Fatty, fruity | ** | 0.801 b | 0.123 b | nd b | 10.91 a |
6-Methyl-5-hepten-2-one | Ketone | 55/108/69/91 | 1207 | Herbaceous, oily | ** | 3.907 b,c | 6.412 b | 14.469 a | 0.974 c | |
γ-Terpineol | Terpene | 59/93/121/136 | 1243 | 1224 | Lilac | * | 0.400 c | 0.660 b | 0.990 a,b | 1.972 a |
1,4-Dimethoxy-benzene | Phenolic compound | 123/138/95 | 1254 | Fatty | ** | 2.968 c | 5.093 a | 5.217 a | 4.111 b | |
Cyclohexanecarboxylic acid, butil ester | Acid | 129/83/55/111 | 1266 | * | 6.227 a | 1.411 c | 2.729 b | 1.854 c | ||
4-Ethylphenol | Phenolic compound | 107/122/77 | 1271 | Alcohol, medicinal | NS | 0.870 | 1.104 | 1.546 | 0.547 | |
Ethyl dihydrocinnamate | 104/91 | 1396 | 1390 | NS | 0.469 | 0.383 | nd | nd | ||
β-Bisabolene | Terpene | 69/93 | 1525 | 1517 | NS | 0.262 | nd | nd | nd | |
Σ Alcohols | * | 1.726 b | 2.638 a | 1.233 b | 2.900 a | |||||
Σ Sulfur compounds | NS | 0.221 | 0.552 | 1.063 | 0.285 | |||||
Σ Esters | ** | 38.48 a | 24.44 b | 24.64 b | 15.78 c | |||||
Σ Ketones | ** | 3.907 b,c | 6.412 b | 14.47 a | 0.974 c | |||||
Σ Terpenes | *** | 27.81 c | 29.04 b,c | 47.39 a | 32.01 b | |||||
Σ Acids | * | 19.81 a | 16.26 a | 2.95 b | 24.03 a | |||||
Σ Phenolic compounds | *** | 7.000 b | 19.14 a | 7.488 b | 23.50 a | |||||
Σ Hydrocarbons | NS | 0.580 | 1.135 | 0.773 | 0.523 |
Appearance | Flavor | Texture | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample | Color | Green-Olive Flavor | Saltiness | Bitterness | Sourness | Sweetness | Aftertaste | Off-Flavor | Hardness | Crunchiness | Fibrousness |
ANOVA† | |||||||||||
** | * | NS | * | *** | NS | * | NS | *** | *** | NS | |
Multiple Range Tukey Test‡ | |||||||||||
T0 | 6.5 a,‡ | 6.5 a,b | 5.9 | 5.8 a | 2.4 b | 2.9 | 5.9 a,b | 0.0 | 7.8 a | 7.3 a | 0.3 |
T1 | 5.4 b | 6.9 a | 5.0 | 3.8 a,b | 3.0 b | 2.1 | 5.9 a,b | 0.0 | 6.6 a | 5.6 a | 0.8 |
T2 | 5.9 a,b | 6.4 a,b | 5.9 | 4.0 a,b | 2.6 b | 2.2 | 5.6 b | 0.0 | 7.2 a | 6.1 a | 0.3 |
T3 | 5.7 a,b | 6.2 b | 4.9 | 2.8 b | 6.9 a | 1.7 | 8.1 a | 0.0 | 3.5 b | 1.7 b | 0.4 |
Color | Flavor | Bitterness | Saltiness | Sourness | Hardness | Crunchiness | Fibrousness | Aftertaste | Overall Liking | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ANOVA† | ||||||||||
NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Multiple Range Tukey Test | ||||||||||
T0 | 6.2 | 6.6 | 6.3 | 6.2 | 6.3 | 7.0 | 6.7 | 6.5 | 6.6 | 6.5 |
T1 | 6.7 | 6.6 | 6.3 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 6.7 | 6.6 | 6.6 | 6.2 | 6.4 |
T2 | 6.5 | 6.3 | 5.7 | 6.3 | 5.8 | 6.5 | 6.6 | 6.5 | 6.2 | 6.4 |
T3 | 6.5 | 5.9 | 5.7 | 5.9 | 5.8 | 6.3 | 6.5 | 6.5 | 5.9 | 5.7 |
Green-olive Flavor | Saltiness | Hardness | Overall Liking | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ANOVA Test† | |||||
Logo effect | *** | NS | NS | * | |
Location | *** | NS | NS | * | |
Logo effect vs Location | *** | NS | NS | * | |
Multiple Range Tukey Test Logo effect | |||||
Conventional | 6.7 b,‡ | 6.4 | 6.6 | 6.5 b | |
HydroSOStainable logo | 8.0 a | 7.4 | 7.0 | 7.4 a | |
Multiple Range Tukey Test Location | |||||
Location | L1 | 7.7 a | 6.6 | 6.9 | 6.9 b |
L2 | 7.0 b | 7.1 | 7.2 | 7.3 a | |
L3 | 7.3 a,b | 7.0 | 6.3 | 6 b | |
Multiple Range Tukey Test Logo effect vs. Location | |||||
Conventional | L1 | 7.1 a,b | 5.9 | 6.5 | 6.3 a,b |
L2 | 7.0 a,b | 6.6 | 7.3 | 7.6 a | |
L3 | 5.9 c | 6.7 | 5.9 | 5.6 b | |
HydroSOStainable logo | L1 | 8.3 a | 7.2 | 7.3 | 7.5 a |
L2 | 6.9 b | 7.7 | 7.0 | 7.1 a,b | |
L3 | 8.7 a | 7.2 | 6.8 | 7.7 a |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sánchez-Rodríguez, L.; Cano-Lamadrid, M.; Carbonell-Barrachina, Á.A.; Sendra, E.; Hernández, F. Volatile Composition, Sensory Profile and Consumer Acceptability of HydroSOStainable Table Olives. Foods 2019, 8, 470. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8100470
Sánchez-Rodríguez L, Cano-Lamadrid M, Carbonell-Barrachina ÁA, Sendra E, Hernández F. Volatile Composition, Sensory Profile and Consumer Acceptability of HydroSOStainable Table Olives. Foods. 2019; 8(10):470. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8100470
Chicago/Turabian StyleSánchez-Rodríguez, Lucía, Marina Cano-Lamadrid, Ángel A. Carbonell-Barrachina, Esther Sendra, and Francisca Hernández. 2019. "Volatile Composition, Sensory Profile and Consumer Acceptability of HydroSOStainable Table Olives" Foods 8, no. 10: 470. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8100470