## 2 Results
### Sensory Profile of Sous-Vide Basil Infusions
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Sous-Vide Method**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Traditional**} \\ \cline{2-5}
**Attribute** & \(\mathbf{SV_{65}}\) & \(\mathbf{SV_{75}}\) & \(\mathbf{SV_{85}}\) & \(\mathbf{T_{100}}\) \\ \cline{2-5}  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Intensity (0–10 c.u.) \(\mathbf{\bar{x}}\) \(\pm\) SE**} \\ \hline Fresh odor & 4.4 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 3.7 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 4.3 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Natural basil odor & 5.1 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 5.2 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Herbal odor & 3.8 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 3.7 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 3.2 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 3.3 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Sweet odor & 4.0 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.6 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 3.2 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 3.0 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 3.5 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Pungent odor & 1.7 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 1.9 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 1.6 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Clove odor & 2.3 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 2.3 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 1.6 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 2.2 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Anise odor & 2.0 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 1.8 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 1.4 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 1.6 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Color intensity & 7.0 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 6.0 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) & 1.2 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 4.1 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ Natural basil flavor & 5.4 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 5.0 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.6 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 4.4 \(\pm\) 0.6 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Fresh flavor & 4.1 \(\pm\) 0.8 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 2.9 \(\pm\) 0.8 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 3.1 \(\pm\) 0.7 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 3.9 \(\pm\) 0.6 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Herbal flavor & 3.8 \(\pm\) 0.6 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 3.7 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 3.5 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 3.9 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Sweet taste & 2.2 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 1.6 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 1.8 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 2.1 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Bitter taste & 1.3 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 1.7 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Astringent sensation & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 2.3 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 2.4 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 2.5 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Aftertaste & 3.8 \(\pm\) 0.6 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 3.7 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 3.6 \(\pm\) 0.6 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 3.5 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} c.u.—conventional unit; SE—standard error; \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\), b, c, d—different lowercase letters in rows indicate significant differences in color depending on the parameters applied at \(p\leq 0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Effect of various heat treatment methods on the sensory profile of basil infusions. The second principal component demonstrates a relationship between flavor and odor intensity and the content of volatile compounds groups. The intensity of natural basil odor and flavor as well as aftertaste intensity was related to the aldehydes content and was negatively related to traditional basil infusions (T\({}_{100}\)), which is proven by the location of those attributes on the opposite side of the plot origin. Fresh flavor and sweetness were related the most with phenols and ethers content. These vectors were closely related to sample T\({}_{100}\).