Comparison between sensometric and sensomic approaches in the sensory-chemistry relationship definition

The classification and the objective evaluation of the different coffee sensory profiles are becoming even more important since the coffee consumption is moving closer to those of other valuables food products (e.g. wine) in with the consumers well known what they desire and expect from their daily cup of coffee1. To deal with these ambitious objective new high throughput tools have to be developed. The sensometric approach seems promising in these perspectives; the fast and automatable TAS allows the screening of a high number of samples (mandatory to cover representatively a complex food matrix like coffee) while the use of statistical tools (e.g PLS-DA) make the connection between the classic sensory evaluation made by the panel and the chemical profile obtained by the GC-MS platform possible.2 Nevertheless, the effectiveness of this innovative approach has to be compared to the molecular sensory science approach that for two decades has been used to identify and quantify the molecules responsible for different foods flavors.3,4 In these perspectives, the two approaches were applied on coffee samples useful to minimize and maximize the “woody” sensory note expression. Both the approaches were able to point-out a pool of compounds able to differentiate the two type of samples and therefore the expression of the “woody” sensory note. It is clear that these approaches cannot be compared without considering their substantial differences but the good consistency between the compounds pointed out with each of them candidates the sensometric approach as a valid tool to face this important challenge. 1. Ribeiro, J. S., Augusto, F., Salva, T. J. G., Thomaziello, R. A. & Ferreira, M. M. C. Prediction of sensory properties of Brazilian Arabica roasted coffees by headspace solid phase microextraction-gas chromatography and partial least squares. Anal. Chim. Acta 634, 172–179 (2009). 2. Bressanello, D. et al. Coffee aroma : Chemometric comparison of the chemical information provided by three different samplings combined with GC – MS to describe the sensory properties in cup. Food Chem. 214, 218–226 (2017). 3. Schieberle, P. & Hofmann, T. in Food Flavour 413–438 (2011). 4. Schieberle, P. in Characterization of Food 403–431 (1995). doi:10.1016/B978-044481499-9/50018-4