## 3 Results and Discussion
### Sensorial Evaluation  
QDA and TDS were chosen as sensory evaluation tests, as these two methods provide complementary information about the sensory perception of the consumer during and after sensory stimulation [56]. During QDA, the sensory profile is both qualified and quantified after the chewing and swallowing process [57], whereas during TDS, the evolution of the dominant attribute during the chewing process is documented [58]. The attributes of color, odor, taste, hardness, juiciness, saltiness, and the overall score were recorded during QDA. These attributes were generally assessed as having low values, indicating a lower intensity of the respective attribute when heated via OH, except for juiciness. However, the difference in juiciness was not significant; the higher value is attributed to the higher moisture content of the OH-treated samples. The attributes of taste, color, and saltiness also did not show significant differences; thus, a comparable perception \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Unit** & **OH** & **COV** \\ \hline Aerobic total bacteria count & (cfu/g) & 1.7 \(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) & 3.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) \\ \hline Enterobacteriaceae & (cfu/g) & \textless{1.0}\)\(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) & \textless{1.0}\)\(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) \\ \hline _Escherichia coli_ & (cfu/g) & \textless{1.0}\)\(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) & \textless{1.0}\)\(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) \\ \hline Coagulase-positive _Staphylococci_ & (cfu/g) & \textless{1.0}\)\(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) & \textless{1.0}\)\(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) \\ \hline Sulfite-reducing mesophilic _Ch Clostrridia_ & (cfu/g) & \textless{1.0}\)\(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) & \textless{1.0}\)\(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) \\ \hline _Salmonella_ spp. & in 25 g sample & 0 & 0 \\ \hline _Listeria_ spp. & in 25 g sample & 0 & 0 \\ \hline _Listeria monocytogenes_ & in 25 g sample & 0 & 0 \\ \hline _Listeria_ spp. & (cfu/g) & \textless{1.0}\)\(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) & \textless{1.0}\)\(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) \\ \hline _Listeria monocytogenes_ & (cfu/g) & \textless{1.0}\)\(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) & \textless{1.0}\)\(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Determination of microbiological contamination of ohmic and conventionally heated (OH and COV, respectively) Bologna-style sausages after 7 days of storage. of these attributes is concluded. Significant differences, however, were observed for the attributes of odor, hardness, and the overall score. The hardness of OH-treated samples was also rated lower compared to COV-treated samples. This observation is in line with [PERSON] et al. and [PERSON] et al., who also describe lower hardness values after sensory evaluation of OH-treated Bologna-style sausages [11; 12]. Furthermore, the sensory evaluation of this study aligns well with results obtained during TPA, as a lower hardness or a lower gumminess were measured for OH-treated samples. Lower hardness values in sensory evaluation are therefore also attributed to the reasons given in Section 3.4 The lower overall score for OH-treated samples is expected to occur as a combination of the mainly lower attribute intensities, which led to a general lower acceptance of OH-treated sausages. TDS evaluation confirmed TPA and QDA results for the lower hardness of OH-treated samples during the chewing process. This attribute was significant during the chewing process of COV-treated samples but was not dominant during the chewing of OH-treated samples. Furthermore, the attributes greasy, meaty juicy, salty, and sour were assessed during TDS. Thereby, the attributes sour and meaty were rated similarly between samples of both heating methods. The temporal dominance of saltiness occurred also at a comparable timescale and intensity between OH- and COV-treated sausages. Differences, however, were obtained for the attributes of juicy and greasy. Here, the dominance of sensation occurred at an earlier stage of chewing for OH-treated samples compared to COV-treated samples.