4.7 Review

Mechanical Strategies to Increase Nutritional and Sensory Quality of Virgin Olive Oil by Modulating the Endogenous Enzyme Activities

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1541-4337.12054

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This monograph is a critical review of the biological activities that occur during virgin olive oil (VOO) extraction process. Strategic choices of plant engineering systems and of processing technologies should be made to condition the enzymatic activities, in order to modulate the nutritional and the sensory quality of the product toward the consumer expectations. Modulation of the product quality properties has the main aim to predetermine the quantity and the quality of 2 classes of substances: polyphenols and volatile compounds responsible of VOO nutritional and sensory characteristics. In the 1st section, a systematic analysis of the literature has been carried out to investigate the main olive enzymatic activities involved in the complex biotransformation that occurs during the mechanical extraction process. In the 2nd section, a critical and interpretative discussion of the influence of each step of the extraction process on the polyphenols and the volatile compounds has been performed. The effect of the different mechanical devices that are part of the extraction process is analyzed and recommendations, strategies, and possible avenues for future researches are suggested. Practical Application In the field of virgin olive oil industry, time and energy should be spent on developing innovative processing plants and equipment able to better modulate the physical parameters that influence endogenous olive enzyme activities, such as temperature, time, amounts of processing water and oxygen. This review paper can be a useful resource to design and develop innovative equipment by offering an exhaustive analysis of mechanical effects of industrial devices and biological effects of endogenous enzymes on the sensory and nutritional properties of virgin olive oil.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据