VIRGIN OLIVE OIL–BASED COSMETIC CREAMS 375 Evaluations were conducted in a testing room compliant with COI/T.20/Doc. No. 6/Rev. 1, equipped with fi ve individual cabins with temperature control (between 22 and 24°C) and air circulation means. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Data from the sensory profi les of the studied olive oils was subjected to an analysis of vari- ance (ANOVA) considering the different oil types, the assessors, and the interaction be- tween the two, as fi xed sources of variation. Where differences were signifi cant, honestly signifi cant differences were calculated according to the Tukey test (p 0.05). An ANOVA was also performed on the data available from the sensory assessment of creams, considering oil quality, oil concentration, processing method, and interactions among the three, as fi xed sources of variation. Mean ratings and honestly signifi cant dif- ferences were calculated according to the Tukey test (p 0.05). XL-Stat 2011 software (Addinsoft, NY) was used to conduct the above analyses. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION SENSORY PROFILES OF VIRGIN OLIVE OILS The sensory profi les of the studied olive oils are presented in Fig. 1 and Table II. Al- though the COI uses medians of the positive attributes and defects for qualifying oils, Table II shows average rating for each attribute and the results of the ANOVA. Signifi - cant differences (p 0.05) were found among the four olive oil types with regard to the following attributes: fusty/muddy sediment, musty/humid/earthy, rancid, rough, fruity, bitter, pungent, green (grass/leaf), fi g tree, tomato, banana, and other fruity and astrin- gent attributes. Overall, the odor of oil A (extra virgin) was described as undefective, balanced, greenly fruity, bitter, spicy, grass-or leaf-greenly, astringent, and more intense than that of the other oils. The odor of oil A also presented notes of tomato, apple, and almond/nut. Figure 1. Olive oil sensory profi les.
JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE 376 The odor of oil B (extra virgin) was also described as undefective and balanced, though less greenly fruity, bitter, pungent, grass-or leaf-greenly, and astringent than that of oil A. It also presented fi g and almond/nut notes. Oil C (virgin) showed fruit, tomato, and banana notes and sweetness of similar intensity to that of oil B, whereas it was also described as less pungent and bitter. The fruitiness of this oil was primarily associated with notes of maturity. It showed the odor of a fusty/ muddy sediment at a low intensity, confi rming the virgin quality of this oil. Oil D (ordinary virgin) showed the fusty/muddy sediment odor at a high intensity, ac- companied by other defective attributes, such as musty/humid, rancid, and rough. It also showed fruity, bitter, and pungent attributes at a low intensity. SENSORY EVALUATION OF CREAMS An ANOVA showed that the intensity of fruity and defective odors varied signifi cantly (p 0.0001) among the tested creams, indicating that some of the factors studied infl u- enced the odor perceived by the sensory panel. Table III shows the average intensity of fruity and defective odors among the 30 creams. Fruitiness. Both oil type and concentration, as well as the interaction between the two, signifi cantly affected (p 0.0001) the fruitiness attribute of the odor of creams. Overall, Table II Olive Oil Sensory Profi les Attribute Oil type A B C D Fusty/muddy sediment 0.0c 0.0c 0.8b 4.7a Musty/humid/earthy 0.0b 0.0b 0.0b 2.1c Winey/vinegary 0.0a 0.0a 0.2a 0.4a Metallic 0.0a 0.0a 0.0a 0.0a Rancid 0.0b 0.0b 0.4b 1.7a Rough 0.0b 0.0b 0.2b 1.4a Fruity 4.3a 3.0b 2.8b 1.1c Bitter 4.6a 2.9b 1.8c 0.8d Pungent 4.9a 2.9b 1.7c 1.4c Green (grass/leaf) 3.3a 1.9b 1.6c 0.0c Fig tree 0.1b 0.7a 0.0b 0.0b Tomato 0.8a 1.0a 1.3a 0.0b Apple 0.4a 0.2a 0.2a 0.0a Banana 1.4a 1.2a,b 0.4b,c 0.1c Almond/nut 1.5a 1.8a 1.3a 0.8a Other fruity attributes 1.2a 0.7a,b 0.7a,b 0.0b Sweet 0.8a 1.8a 1.6a 1.1a Astringent 1.7a 0.6b 0.1b 0.1b Values in a row with different superscripts are signifi cantly different according to the Tukey test (p 0.05).
Previous Page Next Page