## 2 Materials and Methods
### Sensory Evaluation  
The sensory evaluation was carried out by conventional descriptive analysis, focusing only on the odor profile. The panel consisted of seven people (one man and six women between 24 and 45 years old), selected according to their ability to detect and recognize basic tastes and a series of odor compounds (listed in Table 1) selected from previous chorizo, salami, and other sausage studies, and their discrimination ability. For this purpose, a triangle test with two volatile compounds (carvacrol and eugenol) and a duo-trio test with two commercial brands of chorizo were performed.  
Commercial and homemade chorizo samples were used to generate the first list of descriptors, then a preliminary list was obtained in two consensus sessions, and the intensity of the preliminary terms in the chorizo samples was evaluated. The final list of descriptors consisted of eight terms: vinegar, fermented, chili, garlic, pepper, greasy, rancid, and pork meat (Table 2). These terms were relevant to describe the chorizo, not redundant or hedonic, and able to discriminate between samples [41].  
The training phase consisted of three steps. The first step was recognition and familiarization with different types of spices: onion, garlic, oregano, pepper, cumin, clove, vinegar (acetic acid), and fermented (lactic acid) through a matching test, in which four samples per session were used. The second step aimed at familiarization with simple pork meat mixtures. The first mixtures consisted of minced pork meat and one spice, and then more complex mixtures of minced meat with more than one spice were used. Three mixtures per session were presented to the panelists, and each one was evaluated in duplicate. The third step was evaluating the intensity of the odor terms in various chorizo samples at different times of ripening.  
The sensory tests were conducted in a sensory laboratory with individual cabinets kept free from odors. The six samples of chorizo (D0, D5, D12, D19, D26, and D33) were placed in an odorless amber glass bottle (75 mL) covered with aluminum and coded with three digits, presented simultaneously in a randomized order, to be evaluated in duplicate by each judge. The eight odors were included for each replicate (session), but there was a  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Odor Compound** & **Brand a** & **Concentration b** & **Odor Descriptor** \\  & & **(ppm)** & **(\%)** \\ \hline Furfural & SF & 90 & bread, almond, sweet 8 \\ Linalool & SA & 3 & citrus-like, bergamot-like 6 \\ Isoamyl acetate & SA & 10 & fruity, banana, pear odor 7 \\ Eugenol & SA & 10 & spicy, smokay, clove-like 7 \\ Dimethyl sulfide & FK & 0.1 & Caulflowers 1, cabbage, sulfur 8 \\
1-Octen-3-ol & SA & 10 & earthy, dust, mushroom 1,2,3,4,5 \\ Limonene & SA & 12 & citric, fresh 1,2,3 \\ Benzaldehyde & SA & 10 & bitter almonds 1 \\
2,3-Butanedione & FK & 0.03 & Buttery 1,4, cheese 2,3 \\ Myrcene & SA & 15 & hop-like, geranium-like 6 \\ Carvacrol & SA & 25 & medicinal, origanum, herbaceous 7 \\ Ethly Butanoate & SF & 2 & Fruity 6 \\ Acetic acid & SF & 30000 & Vinegar 4, pungent, sour 5 \\ Hexanal & FK & 6 & rancid, fresh cut grass 2,3,4,5 \\ \hline \hline SF: SAFC, Missouri, USA; SA: Sigma-Aldrich; FK: Fluka, Missouri, USA. a: All Kosber grade; b: Threshold reported by [PERSON] et al. [37]. 1 [38]; 2 [39]; 3 [22]; 4 [17]; 5 [40]; 6 [37]; 7 Flavor-base \"[[http://www.leffingwell.com/flavbase.htm?T1](http://www.leffingwell.com/flavbase.htm?T1)]([http://www.leffingwell.com/flavbase.htm?T1](http://www.leffingwell.com/flavbase.htm?T1))\textbackslash{}text  
break for each judge after the first four odors. The intensity of each odor was evaluated on a 15 cm non-structured line scale from 0 (not perceived) to 15 (maximum).