| Literature DB >> 35563906 |
Vicente Manuel Gómez-López1, Luis Noguera-Artiaga2, Fernando Figueroa-Morales3, Francisco Girón3, Ángel Antonio Carbonell-Barrachina2, José Antonio Gabaldón3, Antonio Jose Pérez-López3.
Abstract
Shelled walnuts are considered a microbiologically low-risk food but have been linked to some outbreaks, and a treatment aiming to decrease this risk is desirable. Pulsed light (PL) may be an alternative, providing it does not seriously impair their quality. This work assessed the impact of PL on some quality attributes of walnuts. To do this, measurements of rancidity, volatiles, total phenols, antioxidant activity, and descriptive sensory analysis were carried out on untreated and PL (43 J/cm2)-treated kernels. PL had no statistically significant (p > 0.05) effects on TBARS, peroxide value, total phenols, and antioxidant activity but significantly increased the concentration of volatiles related to green/herbaceous odors and decreased compounds related to fruity and citrus odors. The descriptors nut overall, walnut odor and flavor, and aftertaste were given statistically significantly (p < 0.05) higher scores, while descriptors woody odor and sweet received lower scores; 16 other traits such as all those related to color, texture, and rancidity were unaffected. No significant (p > 0.05) effects on total phenols and antioxidant activity in general were observed during the course of PL treatment. It can be concluded that PL technology may be used in shelled walnuts with only mild effects on their quality; a storage study must be carried out in order to determine the effect of PL treatment on its shelf-life.Entities:
Keywords: UV light; food quality; non-thermal; nut; pulsed light; rancidity; sensory; volatiles; walnut
Year: 2022 PMID: 35563906 PMCID: PMC9103840 DOI: 10.3390/foods11091186
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Appearance, flavor, and texture attributes and definitions used in the study.
| Sensory Descriptor | Definition | References and Intensities |
|---|---|---|
| Color | Visual evaluation of color intensity of sample | Pantone 17-1052 TCX = 8.5 |
| Color homogeneity | Distribution of the main color in the sample | % of total of sample |
|
| ||
| Nut overall | The nut-like aromatic that is typical of nuts such as pistachios and almonds. | Nuts Mix “Borges” = 8.0 |
| Walnut | Aromatic reminiscent of walnut | NOW Foods Raw Walnuts = 8.0 |
| Roasted | Dark-brown odor and flavor notes of products cooked without including bitter or burned notes | Roasted peanuts (Planters) = 5.0 |
| Woody | Aroma associated with woody notes such as those associated with dried fruit shells | Whole peanuts (with shell) = 8.5 |
| Earthy | Aroma related to wet dirt | Pomegranate “Mollar de Elche” = 5.0 |
| Rancy | Aroma related to fat rancidity | Standard of the International Olive Council 5 g L−1 = 3.5 |
|
| ||
| Sweet | The taste stimulated by substances such as sucrose or stevia | Sucrose solution 2.5 g L−1 = 3.5 |
| Bitter | The taste stimulated by substances such as caffeine or quinine | Caffeine solution 1 g L−1 = 3.0 |
| Astringent | The puckering or shrinking of the mouth caused by substances such as alum or tannins. | Alum solution 1.5 g L−1 = 1.5 |
| Aftertaste | Time that the characteristic flavor of walnut remains in the mouth after swallowing or expectorating the sample. | 5 s = 1.0 |
|
| ||
| Hardness | The force required to bite food with molar teeth. Evaluate with the molars and on first bite. | Carrots = 7.5 |
| Crunchiness | Sound associated with mastication of sample with molars | Cheerios = 7.5 |
| Friability | After chewing, the number of pieces the food breaks into sunke | Carrots fresh = 1.5 |
| Adhesiveness | Amount of product that remains adhered to the teeth after chewing | Mushrooms unpeeled = 2.0 |
| Oiliness | Oily sensation left in the mouth after chewing the sample | Lay’s potato chips = 8.0 |
Quality indicators of shelled walnut oil subjected to pulsed light treatment (mean ± standard deviation).
| Fluence (J/cm2) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 10.7 | 21.4 | 32.1 | 42.8 | |
|
| |||||
| TBARS 1 (mg MDA 2/L oil) | 0.27 ± 0.07 a | 0.32 ± 0.06 a | 0.27 ± 0.08 a | 0.31 ± 0.07 a | 0.34 ± 0.03 a |
| PV 3 (mmol O2/g oil) | 9.13 ± 0.46 a | 9.13 ± 0.64 a | 9.27 ± 0.46 a | 8.60 ± 0.35 a | 8.73 ± 0.23 a |
|
| |||||
| Total phenols (g GAE 4/l) | 0.70 ± 0.17 a | 0.69 ± 0.16 a | 0.67 ± 0.08 a | 0.60 ± 0.07 a | 0.67 ± 0.14 a |
|
| |||||
| FRAP 5 (µM Fe2+ equiv.) | 753 ± 55 a | 531 ± 43 b | 457 ± 21 b | 674 ± 15 a | 495 ± 13 b |
| DPPH (µM equiv. Trolox) | 469 ± 32 a | 464 ± 31 a | 466 ± 29 a | 469 ± 24 a | 462 ± 22 a |
| ABTS (µM equiv. Trolox) | 399 ± 30 a | 396 ± 57 a | 327 ± 36 a | 391 ± 45 a | 336 ± 79 a |
1 Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances, 2 malondialdehyde, 3 peroxide value, 4 gallic acid equivalent, 5 ferric reducing antioxidant power. Within rows, values followed by different letters are statistically different (p < 0.05).
Volatile composition (% relative area) and odor descriptors of walnut organic volatile compounds subjected or not to pulsed light (PL) treatment.
| RT (min) | Compound | Odor Description | KI Exp. | KI Lit | ANOVA | Control | PL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.199 | Hexanal | Green, woody, grassy | 800 | 801 | *** | 3.02 b | 30.11 a |
| 10.968 | 1-Hexanol | Herbaceous, green | 862 | 865 | *** | 4.43 b | 57.83 a |
| 11.754 | Methyl hexanoate | Fruity | 915 | 915 | *** | 45.55 a | 0.20 b |
| 16.079 | Methyl-2-hexenoate | Fatty | 934 | 933 | NS | 1.02 | 0.08 |
| 16.775 | Benzaldehyde | Bitter almond, cherry, nutty | 936 | 935 | NS | 1.85 | 1.11 |
| 17.846 | 1-Heptanol | Musty, leafy, herbal, green, sweet | 970 | 970 | NS | 0.80 | 0.48 |
| 18.712 | Methyl heptenone | Citrus, green | 992 | 994 | NS | 0.98 | 1.41 |
| 19.803 | Ethyl hexanoate | Fruity | 1002 | 1000 | ** | 5.81 a | 0.34 b |
| 21.439 | β-Cymene | Terpenic | 1025 | 1028 | NS | 1.82 | 0.38 |
| 21.790 | D-Limonene | Citrus, orange, lemon | 1029 | 1031 | *** | 18.20 a | 1.80 b |
| 23.982 | Sabinene hydrate | Herbal, cooling | 1101 | 1096 | NS | 0.85 | 1.04 |
| 27.601 | Nonanal | Waxy, citrus, green | 1115 | 1105 | *** | 3.10 a | 0.95 b |
| 31.633 | ( | Herbal, woody, pine | 1145 | 1140 | NS | 0.93 | 0.75 |
| 34.432 | Ethyl octanoate | Waxy, sweet, fruity | 1201 | 1206 | NS | 0.73 | 0.20 |
| 34.760 | Dodecane | - | 1206 | 1200 | NS | 1.84 | 0.96 |
| 35.007 | Decanal | Sweet, waxy, orange | 1210 | 1207 | NS | 1.84 | 0.73 |
| 35.681 | Tridecane | - | 1298 | 1300 | NS | 0.50 | 0.24 |
| 40.031 | Dodecane, 4,6-dimethyl- | - | 1327 | 1325 | ** | 3.06 a | 0.84 b |
| 48.395 | Tetradecane | - | 1401 | 1400 | ** | 1.55 a | 0.44 b |
| 49.082 | Isocaryophyllene | Woody, spicy | 1459 | 1461 | ** | 2.22 a | 0.13 b |
KI exp.: Kovat’s index experimental; KI Lit.: Kovats index literature (NIST). Values (mean of 3 replications) followed by the same letter within the same volatile compound were not significantly different (p > 0.05), according to Tukey’s least significant difference test. NS = not significant at p > 0.05; **, ***, significant at p < 0.01 and 0.001, respectively.
Descriptive sensory analysis of walnuts affected by pulsed light (PL) treatment.
| Sensory Descriptor | ANOVA | Control | PL |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Color | NS | 5.5 | 6.0 |
| Color homogeneity | NS | 8.0 | 8.0 |
|
| |||
| Nut overall | ** | 3.0 b | 3.5 a |
| Walnut | ** | 3.0 b | 3.5 a |
| Roasted | NS | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Woody | *** | 1.5 a | 1.0 b |
| Earthy | NS | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Rancy | NS | 0 | 0 |
|
| |||
| Nut overall | ** | 8.0 b | 8.5 a |
| Walnut | *** | 7.5 b | 8.0 a |
| Roasted | NS | 2.2 | 2.5 |
| Woody | NS | 3.5 | 4.0 |
| Earthy | NS | 1.5 | 1.5 |
| Rancy | NS | 0 | 0 |
| Sweet | ** | 2.5 a | 2.0 b |
| Bitter | NS | 3.5 | 3.5 |
| Astringent | NS | 2.5 | 2.0 |
| Aftertaste | ** | 5.0 b | 5.5 a |
|
| |||
| Hardness | NS | 5.5 | 5.5 |
| Crunchiness | NS | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| Friability | NS | 7.5 | 7.0 |
| Adhesiveness | NS | 6.0 | 6.5 |
| Oiliness | NS | 2.5 | 2.5 |
Values (mean of 3 replications) followed by the same letter within the same volatile compound were not significantly different (p > 0.05), according to Tukey’s least significant difference test. NS = not significant at p > 0.05; **, ***, significant at p < 0.01 and 0.001, respectively.