## 3 Results
### Sensory Evaluation  
Table 4 shows the results obtained for the sensorial analysis carried out at the beginning of the assay (T0) by a panel of 10 tasters. During the sensory evaluation, visual (appearance), gustatory (texture and taste), and olfactory (odor) assessments of each mortadella sample were performed. After tasting each one in random order, the 10 semi-trained tasters rated the single parameters using a scale ranging from 1 to 5. The mean scores and standard deviations calculated for each attribute are presented in the table below. Considering the experimental formulations, a preliminary global sensory assessment revealed that the artisanal mortaledILs MTS1 and MTS3 were similar, with slight differences in preference for the MTS3 sample, which achieved a total score of 51.55 compared to 50.5 for MTS1. MTS2 received the lowest total score (45.3) among the three innovative formulations and was the least appreciated in all respects. Specifically, both MTS1 and MTS3 achieved the highest scores for appearance (mean = 3.3) and taste (mean = 2.7). Additionally, MTS3 scored better for odor (mean = 2.9), while MTS1 performed better in terms of texture (mean = 2.3). Finally, a comparative analysis with the control sample (MTC) revealed that the mortadella formulations containing mandarin peel (MTS1) and oregano (MTS3) powders were also more appreciated than the control sample (total score = 46.15). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Attribute** & **MTS1** & **MTS2** & **MTS3** & **MTC** \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**External evaluation**} \\ \hline Color intensity & 4.1 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 3.5 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 3.5 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 4.2 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline Visible seasoning & 4.1 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 3.2 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 2.5 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ \hline Homogeneity perception & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 4.1 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 3.2 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline Presence of holes & 2.1 \(\pm\) 1.2 & 2.5 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 2.5 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 1 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline Hole size & 2 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 1 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 2 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 1 \(\pm\) 0.5 \\ \hline Shine & 3 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 3.5 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 3.5 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 3.6 \(\pm\) 0.3 \\ \hline
**Odor** & & & & \\ \hline Intensity & 4 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 4 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 4.75 \(\pm\) 0.3 \\ \hline Seasoning smell & 2.75 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 2.75 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 3.75 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 4.1 \(\pm\) 0.6 \\ \hline Pepper smell & 2.25 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 2.25 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 2.5 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 1 \(\pm\) 0.2 \\ \hline Unpleasant odors & 1 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 1 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 1 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 1 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline
**Texture** & & & & \\ \hline Chew resistance & 1.5 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 1.25 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 1 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 1 \(\pm\) 0.5 \\ \hline Gelatinous texture & 2 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 1.75 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 2 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 2.75 \(\pm\) 0.4 \\ \hline Juiciness & 3.5 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 3 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 3.5 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 1.5 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ \hline
**Taste** & & & & \\ \hline Flavor intensity & 3.2 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 2.5 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 3.2 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 4.7 \(\pm\) 0.5 \\ \hline Seasoning flavor & 3.5 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 3 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 3.5 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 3.25 \(\pm\) 0.2 \\ \hline Pepper flavor & 2.5 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 2 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 2.5 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 1 \(\pm\) 0.8 \\ \hline Saltiness & 3.5 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 3 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 3.5 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 3 \(\pm\) 0.3 \\ \hline Unpleasant taste & 1 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 1 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 1 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 1 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline
**Total score** & **50.5** & **45.3** & **51.55** & **46.15** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Mean scores and standard deviations of sensory and gustatory descriptors assigned to the four mortadella formulations (MTS1, MTS2, MTS3, and MTC) by a panel of 10 tasters. At the end of the storage (T3), visual and olfactory evaluations of the tested products were conducted. The visual assessment revealed browning in the three experimental samples (MTS1, MTS2, and MTS3) compared to the control (MTC).