his his hile orino, 13–21 , fish, ntries s with the scientific 4–11 with small game birds. ` a degli Studi di Torino, Turin, Italy 2011 Society of Chemical Industry c ° polenta e osei 12 ` a degli Studi di Torino, Via L da vinci 44, 10095 Grugliasco, T alidated before references were determined. After panel Italy. E-mail: [email protected] Dipartimento di ValorizzazioneMicrobiologia e e Industrie Protezione agrarie, Universit Risorse Agroforestali – Settore Correspondence to:Protezione Giuseppe Risorse Zeppa, Agroforestali – Dipartimento SettoreUniversit Microbiologia di e Industrie Valorizzazione agrarie, e Generally, the yellow maize cornmeal is usedPolenta for is traditionally a polenta slowly cooked dish, sometimes taking Although corn composition has been well defined and the The aim of this work was thus to use a quantitative descriptive QDA has been successfully used to obtain detailed descriptions ∗ production, but buckwheat,two can white also be maize used. or a mixturean of hour the orHowever, longer a to varietyprecooked cook, of polenta have with cooking recently constantand shortcuts become elsewhere. popular, stirring such both necessary. as in Italy instant and chemical/sensory characteristics of someas derived tortillas products or such popcorn have also been outlined, mushrooms, rapini (broccoli rabe) oror meat, other as vegetables, in the sausages Venetian analysis (QDA) totraditional define polenta obtained a fromlexicon fresh lexicon to compare corn different corn for maize cultivars regarding odour, and aroma theand, use above t sensory all, the structure profile of the of final product. of the aroma, flavour and oral texture of food and beverages. literature concerning studies on polenta is poor andchemical only parameters. concerns d to describe the sensory qualities of polenta for both basic there are no data concerning the sensory characteristics of t the lexicon for a sensory profile of polenta and relationship epan,ortoppedwithvariousfoods(cheeses,meat,sausages e by mixing cornmeal with salt water and stirring constantly w e nd in Switzerland, Austria, Croatia, Argentina and other cou tivars were defined. lso astics, porcini In these countries, polenta is 2,3 Marta Bertolino and Luca Rolle L. or chestnut flours, both of which ∗ in Latin) commonly eaten in Roman ), known as corn in some countries, is mays : 412–417 www.soci.org 92 pulentum L. ssp. or Triticum spelta 2012; corn; polenta; sensory analysis; quantitative descriptive analysis; principal component analysis puls The primary uses of corn are as feed for livestock, forage,

1 Zea mays

2011 Society of Chemical Industry The name ‘polenta’ derives from earlier forms of grain mush Amongthesedishes,themostpopularinnorthernItaly(buta c a cereal grain widely cultivated throughoutproduction the was world. over Worldwide 826 Mt in 2008wheat – (681 more Mt), than with rice the (678 USA Mt) producing and harvest. almost half of the world’s etc.). It is most popular in northern Italy but can also be fou cookingoveralowheat.Itcanbeeatenplain,straightfromth times and later. The early forms of polenta were madeextracted with starches from made with either coarsely or finelyred ground cornmeal, dried depending yellow, both white on or the region in question and th are still used (although in relatively small quantities) today.is Polenta often cooked in a hugeand copper pot can known be in mixed Italian (generally as atof a serving) the ‘paiolo’ with end various of foods cooking such or as cheeses, at butter, moment fish, texture desired. (known as Abstract J Sci Food Agric Keywords: ° product. A research study was thereforecorn carried cultivars. out to define RESULTS: A lexicon withtraining, 13 the sensory sensory profiles parameters of 12 was autochthonous defined maize cul and v research, such as maize selection, and product development. INTRODUCTION Maize ( CONCLUSION: The results of thisdescription research of highlighted polenta, that and quantitative that descriptive the analysis defined can also lexicon be can used be for use the sensory BACKGROUND: Polenta is a porridge-like dish, generally mad Giuseppe Zeppa, polenta produced with different corn cultivars in Eastern Europe and South America. Despite this diffusion, (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/jsfa.4593 Quantitative descriptive analysis of Italian Research Article Received: 1 May 2011 Revised: 4 July 2011 Accepted: 6 July 2011 Published online in Wiley Online Library: 4 August 2011 in Switzerland, Austria, Croatia, ArgentinaEastern and Europe and South other America) is countries certainly polenta, in a porridge- like dish, generally made by mixingconstantly cornmeal stirring with while salt cooking. water and silage and grain, but it canmazes, also sculptures, be etc.) used or for as maize biofuel.with creations This many (corn grain industrial is uses very including important, syrups transformation and into pl alcoholhuman for nutrition in biofuels, the form of but popcorn,cornmeal sweetcorn it and, with above which is all, various dishes also suchin as widely Brazil, polenta mush in used in Italy, the angu for USA or tortillas can be produced.

412 413 s or es he h a hen ons, ained 5 min ucted ofile of icipated l lexicon iscussed and ‘adjusted 23 Eight 1 h training 22 is the number of times F For each descriptor, the 29 wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa , where and Meilgaard, 2 / 1 ) 29 I × F ( = is the sum of the intensities given by the whole panel for I The procedure for selecting and identifying the descriptor Assessors were asked to generate the maximum number of In the first year, the assessors developed the list of attribut The training period, reduced to only three 1 h training sessi Ata2 hround-table,theselecteddescriptorswerefirstexpl Each descriptor was extensively described and explained to was adapted from ISO 11 035 in three 1 h round-table discussionsand to to establish discard the initia any hedonic,selectingonlythemostappropriateterms.Thepanellistsd redundant or qualitative descriptors, and reached agreement for each descriptor on the initialproceeding list with before the subsequent sessions. this activity a whiteRosso) cultivar and (Ostenga), six a yellow red cultivarsproduction were cultivar takes used (Pignoletto about (Table 60 1). min, Since samplesstill polenta must be hot, examined while andavailable because only one only sample onesensory could session. automatic be produced cooking-mixer and was analysed per descriptors possible for polenta. The panellists then part for odour, aroma, tastesessions. and For structure each during session, eight one initial sample 1 of polenta was used. F cleanse the palate during the sessions. Samples werea labelled three-digit with code. consensus among all panellists. sessions were conducted,trained in scoring during the intensity whichand of references. each the attribute The with intensity panellists definitions scores were were discussed to reac frequencies’(AFs)wereused.Five15 minsessionswerecond and five samples wereyellow examined (one corn white, cultivars). oneperceived red Each intensity and for panellist three each wasEach of intensity asked the was descriptors to scored(strong), in on in judge the a accordance with the 5-point initial ISO scale 11 list. 035. from 0 (none) to 5 was repeated in the secondgap between year tests. to After the counteract training the period,polenta the obtained lengthy by sensory the time pr 12 autochthonous cultivars was evaluated during 36 sessions performed over 2evaluated years. in All triplicate. samples The were samples t wererandom labelled numbers. with Assessors three-digit evaluated each parameterfrom on 0 a (absence scale of sensation) to 9 (extremely intense). Statistical analysis For each year,cultivars, a judges two-way andhighlight analysis their the interactions of differences as varianceway for effects ANOVA (ANOVA) was with each with cultivar used sensory and to parameter. years as A effects two- was also used to the descriptor was mentioned divided by the total number ofthat times descriptor could be mentioned,and expressed as a percentage, AF was calculated as AF descriptor, expressed as aalso percentage. allowed This us calculation tomentioned method take but into which account areintensity, descriptors very and that descriptors important with are in low rarely termsare perceived intensity mentioned of but often. perceived which Theto classification the of descriptors size according ofdescriptors whose the geometrical means means were relatively allowed low. us to eliminate a number of a descriptor divided by the maximum possible intensity for t to panellists andsubsequent then discussion. references were determined during the avoid all doubts about the relevant meaning. www.soci.org n re ting X X X e and ors, salt Ostenga C. Mineral ◦ 2011 Society of Chemical Industry 1 c ° ± Year X X XXXX X X X XX X who generally deal with 24–27 The panel was made up of 10 tasters 22,23 : 412–417 Room temperature was 22 92 28 2012; Corncultivarsusedtodefinethesensoryprofileoftraditional Samples of approximately 80 g polenta were served in plastic Ottofile giallo Scagliolo Marne Nostrano dell’Isola Ostenga Ottofile Maceratese Pignoletto Giallo Cultivar 2008 2009 Table 1. structure of polenta Pignoletto Rosso polenta during the 2used years to of testing. develop The the underlined list cultivars of were attributes for odour, aroma, tast Cinquantino biancoMaranello Verneveil Culaccione X Locale Elbano Marano Sensory analysis of polenta sensory analysis incarried the out in department. the Sessionssensory morning (11 of laboratory : 00–13 analysis was : 00)separate we designed with booths. white according light. to The water (Sant’Anna, ISO Fonti 8589 di Vinadio, with Turin, Italy) was provided to (six male and four female, betweenaccording 30 and to 42 years old, ISO recruited regulations), J Sci Food Agric Sensory analysis A QDA was performed. sensory reception and thus highlight only polentawas descript not used. Cooking timepolenta was 45 was min constantly and stirred. duringconditions, this To an time guarantee automatic the the cooking-mixer (BimbyMilan, same Italy) TM-31, cooking was Vorwerk, used. dishes to panellists. MATERIALS AND METHODS Sample preparation Flour produced by 12 autochthonous corn cultivars wasover examined a 2-year periodthe (Table same 1). tasters Nine in cultivarsFour the were of first examined these year, cultivars by and (Pignoletto Rosso, seven Ottofile in Giallo, the second year. Sensory characteristics are identified by professionally trained and experienced experts andnumber samples of attributes are by a trained evaluated panel. Thismeasure for provides of an the objective a sensory quality selected of food products and the resul and Scagliolo Marne) wereproduced examined in a for field 2 in years. theItaly). province Polenta All was of made maize Turin by (Piedmont, cooking was 300 northwest unsalted g cornflour in water. 1 kg natural Thischaracteristics; it recipe is was largely usedthe used in final product the can to Alpine be mixed area afterwards highlight with ofsausage, cheeses, Italy, fats, fish the meat, where and other maize foods. To avoid any unwanted effects o sensory profiles can thenmanufacturing, be quality control and used in helping in to explain product theof results consumer development tests. and s 18 > in in ensory b b in in in in : 412–417 b a a e b in mineral in mineral in mineral an AF 92 b b a d f in mineral water in mineral water 2012; a a – Tofu – Processed e e cheese mineral water cheese 125 g natural yogurt mineral water mineral water water mineral water water mineral water mineral water water G Zeppa, M Bertolino, L Rolle J Sci Food Agric 96 4 g boiled corn flavour 42 4 g potato boiled flavour 28 2 g chestnut flavour 82 4 g boiled corn flavour 31 2 g chestnut flavour 25 4 g potato boiled flavour AF value Reference Adjusted frequencies (AF) obtained for sensory descriptor aroma aroma aroma odour odour odour Flavourart, Oleggio (NO), Italy. Natura Nuova, Bagnacavallo (RA), Italy. Parmalat, Collecchio (PR), Italy. Sigma-Aldrich Chemical, Milan, Italy. Kraft Foods Italia, Milan, Italy. For all solutions 1 kg mineral water was used. Similar results were obtained for all the years considered. The Texture SlipperinessFirmness 14 87 Philadelphia cream Particle amount 94 10 g minced fresh hazelnuts in EggCooked maize 8 Cooked chestnut FermentedOilCooked potato 11 15 UmamiAroma MetallicGrassyaroma 6 26 15 500mgcis-3-exen-1-ol BreadTaste Sweet 8 95 5gsaccharose SourBitter 14 45 0.8 g caffeine Salty 33 2 g sodium chloride and used for polenta description are also reported Sensory attribute Cooked corn CaramelFlourCooked chestnut 9 15 ToastCooked potato 14 a b c d e f Table 2. Odour Dry grassHoneySmokeGrassyodour 12 11 21 6 500mgcis-3-exen-1-ol during the selection phase. References for attributes with that all of the descriptors were useful in differentiating s qualities among the polenta obtained with different corn cultivars. assessor effect generally was notcould significant for be all attributes explained and the by ‘Particle amount’ the in effective 2009 was training the period. assessor effect Only significant, for . t ’, s. e, n. ily e 2 ure. e of d to initial ect to e asked portant d during 2011 Society of Chemical Industry www.soci.org c 001), implying ° . 0 < P -ratios of the two-way F 18. This value was obtained by supposing > These attributes correspond to the highest-intensity scor Only 13 descriptors achieved this value. Of these, four were The results of the ANOVA indicated that the levels of intensity for wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa Selection of descriptors The dataset of 27 attributes of polenta wasdefined then in refined. The the terms previoussamples step (one were red, one used white and to threewas yellow examine maize) scored five and on intensity polenta a 5-point scale from 0 (none) to 5 (strong). Tabl eight to aroma and three to texture. shows the AFsvalue for to all select descriptors, descriptors. we arbitrarily Since took the there most im is not a defined list of 27 terms. Of these, 11 were related to odour, five to tast descriptors with AF initial tasting sessions. These descriptors were discusse After the round-table discussion, the panel established an RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Generating descriptors The assessors generated 59 descriptive terms after the eigh 3 h ofqualitative round-tables terms. For example, to ‘excellent, good,were eliminate bad, anonymous’ eliminated any as hedonic, hedonicwere terms. redundant erased Also, or terms becausedescriptions such they as of ‘typical’ were‘oxidized’, the judged ‘fermented’ and sensory to otheraspects terms be attributes were also used omitted since inappropriate to the of aim define ofa the defective work lexicon polenta. was to to compare prepare fresh ‘Mouldy maize ascultivars opposed to the during study of conservation. maize Somebe both descriptors orthonasal were and foun decided retronasal, to e.g. categorize these ‘herbaceous’. terms The under panel both odour and aroma highlight the differences for each sensory descriptor. Finally, away one- ANOVA was used tomaize highlight cultivars significant differences for among each year and each term of sensory lexico Duncan’s mean comparison test was useddifferences to among cultivars. highlight A significant principal component analysis (PCA) was also performed incultivars order and to among show relationships variables.was among Mean computed corn across value judges, forAll and calculations each were replicated performed parameter with and the used STATISTICAprogram for (Release for Windows 7.0; StatSoft PCA. Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA). available on the market. During a 2hextensively round-table described discussion, andwere each explained, defined by attribute and panellists and term referencestandards, reported was in simple standards Table and 2. well-defined For reference products were used, read that half of the panellists identified a descriptor forwith half the an samples intensity value of half the maximum potential. related to odour, three to taste, four to aroma and two to text ANOVA (Table 3) allowed theof verification, assessor for agreement all and examined significant differences years, with resp the corn cultivars. each descriptor were significantly different ( Thirty-six sessions were held over 2 years. Sample evaluation to verify the lexicon After the 8 h assessment training period, the panellists wer the rating scale used for sample sensory description. to describe the sensory profile of 12 autochthonous cultivar

414 415 , re J × e first sensory ase with 1.51 NS 1.03 NS judges. × products = ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ J × 1.03 NS 1.01 NS 1.25 NS 0.97 NS 0.92 NS 0.82 NS 0.44 NS 0.91 NS 0.60 NS 1.19 NS 0.48 NS 1.24 NS 0.56 NS 1.10 NS 0.66 NS 1.12 NS 0.69 NS 0.87 NS 1.40 NS 0.95 NS 2.45 0.98 NS 0.78 NS 2.22 wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa Year 2009 varied greatly among varieties. Polenta ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ 30 001; NS, no significant difference; P . 0 J Products Judges P × < P The mean value for the intensity of each sensory attribute we Grassy odour and aroma were very important sensory param- Cooked chestnut odour and aroma were characteristic for Cooked corn odour and aroma values were very high for Cinquantino Bianco and Nostrano isola exhibited the highest The particle amount values, owing to maize resistance to milling ∗∗∗ submitted to PCA. Five principal components wereeigenvalues obtained, with of more thanabout 1.0. 87% These of five thedistribution dimensions variance. (sensory explained Figure attributes) 1 on (biplot) thetwofactors.Highcorrelationisobviouslyshownbytheloadingplot plane shows defined the by variable th between cooked corn aroma and odour. Anotheris showed high among correlation cooked potato aroma, cooked potatoparticle odour amount, and and could be due to starch. is characterized by the presencebut of small if particles in there itsthe are structure highest too values many werePignoletto shown its Rosso by and quality Marano. Culaccione, decreases. Scagliolo Marne, In this study ratings of descriptive attributes are shownand in bitter Table showed 5. the Sweet, lower salty differences amongyear. products for Polenta each isquantities generally of sugars, sweet although due their concentrationsseed to decre ripening. Culaccione the and Ostenga presence provedcultivars, the of sweetest while corn small PignolettoMarne Rosso, showed the Locale highest values for Elbano bitter. and Scagliolo eters for Pignolettoexamined. Rosso and Ottofile Giallo inCinquantino all Bianco, the Ostenga, years Localecooked Elbano potato odour and and aroma Marano, were present while Elbano, above all for Maranello Locale Verneveil,Marne. Ottofile Maceratese and Scagliolo Culaccione, Locale Elbano, Maranello Verneveil and Ottofilein2008,whileMarano,NostranoIsolaandPignolettoGialloshowed Giallo the highest values in 2009. values for firmness. Forgenerally 2008, the similar, values while of 2009among this values maize parameter varieties. showed were a higher variability and starch gelatinization, www.soci.org ay ANOVA (products, judges) performed for each year and each 01; . 0 e = < 05; . ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ P P P 0 ∗∗ × × assessor < 61.09 72.82 62.82 91.11 38.98 05; tor . 226.71 120.95 345.02 141.22 879.95 947.95 147.41 409.07 P × 0 ∗ 2011 Society of Chemical Industry 1.35 NS 0.88 NS 285.89 0.47 NS 1.02 NS 269.29 0.23 NS 0.83 NS 259.76 1.65 NS 1.2 NS 453.83 1.32 NS 0.98 NS 526.60 0.81 NS 0.83 NS 339.56 0.54 NS 0.87 NS 159.63 1.12 NS 0.85 NS 32.34 0.91 NS 0.79 NS 253.86 0.71 NS 1.26 NS 194.96 1.10 NS 1.07 NS 107.61 0.52 NS 1.23 NS 110.70 1.48 NS 0.82 NS 464.97 < Year 2008 c ° P ∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ 10.56 94.86 13.96 875.96 262.63 316.06 152.69 557.81 329.76 228.97 1008.02 ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ Products Judges P ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ Years Products Y 001; NS, no significant difference; Y . : 412–417 0 92 < P 2012; ∗∗∗ -ratios and corresponding significance levels for two-way -ratios and corresponding significance levels for the two-w F F 01; . products. 0 × < P -ratios marked with asterisk indicate significance at: -ratios marked with asterisk indicate significance at: Two-way ANOVA was also used to examine the four maize The years showed a significant effect for all descriptors A one-way ANOVA was then performed for each year using Particle amount 130.57 Firmness 1254.33 Cookedmaizearoma 767.85 Cooked potato aroma 581.72 Cookedchestnutaroma 588.99 Grassyaroma 91.67 Bitter 0.02 NS 128.08 Salty 39.32 Sweet 140.35 Cooked corn odour 3.27 ns 17.2 Cooked potato odour 148.65 Cooked chestnut odour 733.27 Cooked potato odour 576.82 Cooked chestnut odour 994.24 Cooked corn odour 720.90 Sweet 207.97 F Grassy odour 21.98 Table 4. F Grassy odour 156.03 Table 3. Salty 45.52 ∗∗ ANOVA (products, years) performed for each sensory descrip Bitter 248.49 Cooked potato aroma 499.97 attribute years Grassyaroma 122.81 Cooked maize aroma 692.58 Cooked chestnut aroma 628.24 Firmness 448.02 Particle amount 247.36 Sensory analysis of polenta J Sci Food Agric probably due to interindividual differences inwith the use this of very the scale peculiar descriptor. None of product considered negligible. cultivars studied over 2Ostenga years and Scagliolo (Pignoletto Marne) for Rosso, theusing differences Ottofile corn among cultivars Giallo, samples and years as factors (Table 4). with the exceptionresults of ‘Cooked highlighted corn thatmethods applied odour’ in even this experiment and corn characteristics with ‘Bitter’. arecorrelated largely to These the the production year. controlled cultivation autochthonous corn cultivars as variables, and mean intensity interaction showed a significant interaction; thusamong the discordance the judges in the evaluation of these descriptors may b ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ : 412–417 92 2012; 0a 1f 1.1a 4.1d Marne Significance Scagliolo 001. . Marne Significance 0 Scagliolo < 6 G Zeppa, M Bertolino, L Rolle P J Sci Food Agric Rosso ∗∗∗ Pignoletto 01; . 0 Rosso < 4 Pignoletto P

Giallo ∗∗ Ottofile C 05; . 0 MV Cooked corn aroma < Cooked corn odour P 2 ∗ Giallo Ottofile Maceratese Pignoletto Cooked potato aroma Sweet 05; . Grassy aroma 0 PG ≤ P Cooked potato odour Grassy odour Particle amount LE PR OM OG Giallo SM M Ottofile O Bitter Factor 1 : 53.36% : 1 Factor Verneveil Ostenga Maranello NI Salty 2011 Society of Chemical Industry www.soci.org c Locale Elbano ° Cooked chestnut odour Firmness Cooked chestnut aroma Isola Ostenga Nostrano CB -6 -4 -2 0

4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 Factor 2 : 26.46% : 2 Factor Bianco Culaccione Cinquantino Mean intensity rating of sensory attributes of polenta obtained with different corn cultivars and results of one-way ANOVA with Duncan’s PCA: projection of the sensory attribute of polenta and corn cultivars on the factor plane obtained with the first two factors (CB, Cinquantino Mean values within column with the same letter are not significantly different at Grassy odour 0.7e 1.0c 3.9d 0.7ab 0.9bc 4.1e 1.0c 2009 Marano Cooked chestnut odourCooked potato odourCooked corn odour 0.6a 4.4c 2.4d 8.0d 4.2c 4.3e 6.8c 1.9b 0.7ab 6.0b 5.4e 0.9b 3.0a 2.0b 8.6e 0.6a 4.7d 1.3c 3.1a 1.2a 6.6c Grassy odour 0.9a 2.0b 0.9a 1.9b 1.0a 2.9c 4.0d 3.8d 2.1b Table 5. 2008 test Cooked chestnut odour 8.0g 2.0b 0.9a 1.0a 6.9e 1.0a 3.9dSweet 2.9c SaltyGrassy aromaCooked chestnut aromaCooked potato aroma 3.2eFirmness 1.0aParticle amount 2.4d 1.1b 2.4d 2.3d 4.2c 1.2bc 0.5a 4.9e 1.5c 7.1f 4.7c 8.1e 1.0bc 0.7a 0.6a 1.1b 4.6c 0.9ab 6.1e 4.9d 4.5e 0.5a 1.1b 1.7a 1.2c 5.3d 4.0c 3.2c 0.6a 3.0b 0.5a 4.1b 0.7a 2.2b 3.1c 1.5c 3.3b 0.6a 2.9a 1.0bc 4.0c 3.5d 0.9b 5.6d 5.1d 6.4e 3.9b BitterCooked corn aroma 4.2e 3.8e 2.3b 3.4d 5.5g 2.4b 1.5a 3.0c 3.9d 2.8c 4.5f 4.3f 2.7c 0.5a Cooked potato odour 3.0b 5.8d 7.0e 8.0f 1.9a 8.0f 2.0a 4.6c 8. Cooked corn odour 0.8a 7.8g 7.9g 6.9f 3.1c 3.9d 7.0f 5.9e 2.0b SweetGrassy aroma 1.9a 0.6a 7.0e 2.0b 3.0b 0.5a 3.8c 3.0c 5.0d 1.9b 4.0c 0.4a 4.1c 2.1b 2.9b 3.0c 4.0c 2.1b SaltyBitterCooked chestnut aroma 6.9f 1.9b 0.9b 1.9c 4.9e 1.1a 1.2b 2.0c 1.1a 5.2f 4.2d 1.0a 0.9a 1.0a 0.9b 1.0ab 2.9c 1.0b 1.0ab 0.4a 2.1b 2.0c 1.1a 2.9d 1.1a 4.3e Cooked potato aroma 2.2b 6.0e 5.9e 7.1f 2.9c 2.0b 4.0d 2.2b 1. Cooked corn aromaFirmness 0.5a 7.8g 7.9d 4.1e 2.0b 6.0f 2.8c 2.1c 1.1a 3.8d 1.9b 1.0b 3.1c 2.0c 2.1b 0.9b 2.0b 2.9c Particle amount 5.1c 7.9f 4.0b 5.9d 3.9b 3.9b 2.9a 6.0d 6.9e wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa Figure 1. Bianco; C, Culaccione; LEScagliolo Locale Marne; M, Elbano; Marano; MV, NI, Nostrano Maranello Isola; PG, Verneveil; Pignoletto O, Giallo). Ostenga; OM, Ottifile Maceratese; OG, Ottofile Giallo; PR, Pignoletto Rosso; SM,

416 417 6 of of to ´ ez- . ISO Cereal tection eese: a :2–18 Garcia- nsumer :819–823 25 J Sens Stud J Sens Stud 88 onofpolenta Sensory analysis – Sensory analysis – Sensory analysis – Sensory analysis – Sensory analysis – Sensory analysis – . ISO 8589 : 2007 . ISO 11035 : 1994 ¨ Valutazionisensoriali: odter R, Multivariate . ISO 8586/2 : 2008 J Sens Stud J Sci Food Agric Sensory Evaluation Techniques :301–311 (2008). wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa . Hoepli, Milan (2002). . ISO 8586/1 : 1993 (1993). ˜ :36–44 (2011). no. :354–360 (2005). ) and its relationship to consumer 36 :288–294 (2010). :1566–1569 (2010). 23 55 :169–177 (2002). 52 90 8 :285–296 (2001). :333–349 (2005). 13 . ISO 5496 : 2006 (2006). cv. Albari :17–32 (2005). ):sensoryevaluationproceduresandpanel ` aguila J and Masa A, Descriptive analysis of 28 17 :357–364 (2010). :70–71, 128–129 (1990). J Cereal Sci Ital J Food Sci ´ 101 erez JJ, Soto A, Aguilera JM, Cipriano A, Vel , Descriptive sensory analysis of wine vinegar: 46 J Sci Food Agric Cereal Res Commun , Quality classification of corn tortillas using computer et al Vitis vinifera Ital J Food Sci Arch Latinoam Nutr Sparusaurata J Food Qual Lycopersicon esculentum et al Food Sci Technol Int :481–485 (2010). Ital J Food Sci J Food Eng 87 Inf Agrario ` alez RJ, Torres R, de Greef D, Bonaldo A, Robutti J and Borras F, :76–93 (2010). :216–230 (2010). (2008). the sensory description25 of French bread in Japan. sensory analysis ofdetermine five sensory and different textural cultivars profiles. of sweet potato responses. comparison of quality scoring, descriptive analysis and co (2010). sensory profile ofference. broccoli and cauliflower and consumer pre- wines from Parrilla MC, tasting procedure and25 reliability of new attributes. Sicilian chocolate. flour. cultivars ( sea bream ( training. Rivera N, vision. aspetti teorici, pratici e metodologici preference. flour tortillas. subjective wheat flour tortillaChem quality evaluation methods. Predicting hot-press wheat tortillagluten quality properties. using flour, dough and (4th edn). CRC Press, New York (2007). Methodology – Method of3972 : 1991 investigating (1991). sensitivity of taste genetically modified maize in food sold2005 commercially in to Brazil 2007. from General guidance forassessors – Part 1: the Selected assessors selection, training and monitoring Methodology – Initiation and trainingand recognition of of odours assessors in the de General guidance forassessors – Part the 2: selection,(2008). Expert training sensory and monitoring assessors General guidance for(2007). the design of test rooms Identification andsensory profile selection by a(1994). of multidimensional approach descriptors for establishing a Influence of maize kernel hardness onproperties. flour hydration and cooking ¨ uckner B, Schonhof I, Kornelson C and Schr 7 Anton AA, Improving the nutritional and textural properties of wheat 8 Alviola JN and Awika JM, Relationship between objective and 9 Barros F, Alviola JN, Tilley M, Chen YR, Pierucci VRM and Rooney LW, 18 Hayakawa F, Ukai N, Nishida J, Kazami Y and Kohyama K, Lexicon for 19 Leighton CS, Schonfeldt HC and Kruger R, Quantitative descriptive 22 Pagliarini E, Metodi analitici: Profilo sensoriale, in 20 Tesfaye W, Morales ML, Callejon RM, Cerezo AB, Gonzalez AG, 21 Lanza CM, Mazzaglia A and Pagliarini E, Sensory profile of a specialty 16 Hersleth M, Ilseng MA, Martens M and Naes T, Perception of ch 17 Vilanova M, Zamuz S, Tard 23 Meilgaard MC, Civille GV and Carr BT, 24 International Organization for Standardization, 13 Pagliarini E, Monteleone E and Ratti S, Sensory profile of eight tomato 14 Carbonell I,Izquierdo LandCostell E,Sensoryprofilingofcokegilthead 15 Br 12 Venturelli MB,Purin BandPirola M,Maizefortheproducti 25 International Organization for Standardization, 11 Mery D, Chanona-P 10 Dinon AZ, Bosco KT and Arisi ACM, Monitoring of Bt11 and Bt17 26 International Organization for Standardization, 27 International Organization for Standardization, 28 International Organization for Standardization, 29 International Organization for Standardization, 30 Gonz www.soci.org ) te ids. lete ared such ivars. tes of hat the 2011 Society of Chemical Industry c ° 567 [20 April 2011]. = :S79–S85 (2007). 72 Mondadori, Milan (1997). . Scribner, New York (2004). J Food Sci :256–263 (2005). 82 : 412–417 92 :538–545 (2006). 99 2012; Cereal Chem On Food and Cooking Cibi e bevande dalla ‘A’ alla ‘Z’. Crops Production (2009).org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID [Online].). Available: http://faostat.fao. Rheological and sensory evaluation ofstorage. wheat flour tortillas during odor quality differences in popped popcorn of selected hybr Food Chem corn products as sourcesvariation of in lutein the food and chain. zeaxanthin: compositional In fact, cooked potato odour/aroma is similar to that produced Figure1 shows also the positions of the corn cultivars in the 1 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2 Pellati R, 4 Bejosano FP, Joseph S, Miranda Lopez R, Kelekci NN and Waniska RD, 3 McGee H, 5 Park DK and Maga JA, Identification of key volatiles responsible for 6 de Oliveira GPR and Rodriguez-Amaya DB, Processed and prep Sensory analysis of polenta by boiled starch. With ato high milling, quantity of this particlesdirectly not correlated could subjected and inversely becorrelation correlated was more to also sweet. highlighted evident. by An PCAcorn inverse for Bitter firmness odour/aroma. with and cooked Sweetdirectly salty correlated. and Grassy are odour/aroma grassy ismaturation of due maize. odour/aroma to In an this are incomp hence case the presence the also of seeds the also sweet taste. have sugars and factor plane. The53%) first distinguishes componentfirmness very (explained and well variance cookedcorn the about chestnut odour/aroma) Cinquantino odour/aromagroup and but Bianco (high the low cooked (high cornsecond cooked Culaccione–Maranello component odour/aroma (explained variance and about Verneveil 26%) lowthe distinguishes firmness). Ostenga The (highbitter, sweet salty, and cooked potato cooked odourMarano–Locale chestnut and particle Elbano odour amount) group but from (high the potato particle low amount odour/aroma and but cooked lowclear grassy odour/aroma distinction and is sweet). alsosalty, A made bitter and between cooked chestnut the aroma) and Nostrano(high the sweet Isola Pignoletto and Giallo (high grassy aroma but low salty and bitter). J Sci Food Agric REFERENCES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support fromProvincia the di Torino – Assessorato all’Agricolturaof for this the work. realization CONCLUSIONS By using sensory descriptive analysis, the sensory attribu polenta produced with thewater) most simple were recipe obtained (maizefor flour for odour, and the three forwere first defined taste, time. and four referenced Thirteen fordiscussion. through The aroma terms a lexicon and sensory (four was evaluation twosensory validated and profile for and of texture applied polenta to obtainedThe define with results the different show corn cult that all of these descriptors are appropria for differentiating sensory qualities among samples, and t defined lexicon can bepolenta used obtained to by describe fresh corn the flouras sensory both maize qualities for selection, basic of and research, product development.