## 3 Results
### Flavor Compounds and Flavor Profile of Formulated Aggregates

Table 4: _Cont._  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Flavor Compounds** & **TC** & **Cas** & **Cas2\%\_TC** & **Cas6\%\_TC** \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Aldehydes and Ketones**} \\ \hline Hexanal & 2.96 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 2.20 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 9.14 \(\pm\) 0.71 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 8.69 \(\pm\) 0.86 \({}^{\rm c}\) \\
2-heptanone & 0.19 \(\pm\) 0.01 & - & - & - \\ Heptanal & 0.12 \(\pm\) 0.02 & - & - & - \\ Benzaldehyde & 216.21 \(\pm\) 2.53 \({}^{\rm d}\) & 18.84 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 171.40 \(\pm\) 2.72 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 128.12 \(\pm\) 4.79 \({}^{\rm c}\) \\
1-octen-3-one & 4.69 \(\pm\) 0.19 & - & - & - \\
6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one & 7.60 \(\pm\) 0.27 & - & - & - \\ Octanal & - & 3.57 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 5.53 \(\pm\) 0.33 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 12.26 \(\pm\) 1.66 \({}^{\rm c}\) \\ Nonanal & 24.77 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 5.64 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 14.64 \(\pm\) 0.29 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 15.16 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\rm b}\) \\ Decanal & 9.84 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 3.55 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\rm a}\) & - & - \\
4-propylbenzaldehyde & 5.96 \(\pm\) 0.28 & - & - & - \\ Dodecanal & 0.49 \(\pm\) 0.05 & - & - & - \\ Geranylacetone & 6.38 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\rm d}\) & 1.54 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 1.28 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 0.96 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\rm a}\) \\ Lillial & - & 1.86 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 1.77 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 \\ Myristaldehyde & 0.34 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 1.74 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm b}\) & - & - \\ Hexylcinnamal & 0.70 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 0.96 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm b}\) & - & - \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Alcohals**} \\ \hline Octan-3-ol & - & 1.01 \(\pm\) 0.01 & - & - \\
2-ethyl-1-hexanol & 3.99 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 14.46 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 4.34 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 6.06 \(\pm\) 0.49 \({}^{\rm b}\) \\ Benzyl alcohol & 48.55 \(\pm\) 0.78 \({}^{\rm c}\) & - & 34.48 \(\pm\) 3.02 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 23.60 \(\pm\) 0.45 \({}^{\rm a}\) \\
1-octanol & - & 5.88 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 11.01 \(\pm\) 0.38 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 12.62 \(\pm\) 0.40 \({}^{\rm c}\) \\ Phenethyl alcohol & 10.90 \(\pm\) 0.35 & - & - & - \\ Decanol & 4.33 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\rm a}\) & - & 7.18 \(\pm\) 0.76 \({}  
Since each flavor compound is characterized by its odor descriptor and flavor compounds were detected in different concentrations in samples, this resulted in different flavor profiles of initial ingredients and formulated aggregates (Figure 1). According to odor descriptors of flavor compounds, fruity, citrus, floral, green, fatty, earthy, woody and spice flavor notes were identified in samples. In the overall flavor profile of tart cherry juice, the fruity flavor note prevailed (49%), followed by citrus and floral flavor notes (around 23%) with a slight scent of green, spicy and fatty flavor notes (<3%). The protein matrix was characterized by fruity, floral, citrus and green flavor notes, which contributed almost equally to its final flavor (27%, 23%, 21% and 20%, respectively), with a slight scent of woody and earthy flavor notes (8% and 1%, respectively). The formulated aggregates were a combination of the flavor notes of initial ingredients, and the amount of protein matrix affected the final overall profile of aggregates. Generally, the fruity flavor note prevailed in aggregates and it was more pronounced in aggregates prepared with 2% of protein matrix (61%) in contrast to 55% in aggregates prepared with 6%. The fruity flavor note was followed by the citrus one, but the opposite effect was observed with regard to the amount of protein matrix. The citrus flavor note was more pronounced in aggregates prepared with 6% of protein matrix (26%) in contrast to 17% in aggregates prepared with 2%. The floral flavor note followed the trend that was obtained for the fruity one (12% for aggregates with 2% of protein matrix and 8% for aggregates with 6%).