Comparative Study on the Volatile Organic Compounds and Characteristic Flavor Fingerprints of Five Varieties of Walnut Oil in Northwest China Using Using Headspace Gas Chromatography-Ion Mobility Spectrometry
1
Institute of Agricultural Mechanization, Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Urumqi 830000, China
2
Comprehensive Experimental Field of Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Urumqi 830000, China
3
College of Food Science and Engineering, Tianjin University of Science and Technology, Tianjin 300453, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2023, 28(7), 2949; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28072949
Submission received: 16 January 2023
/
Revised: 20 March 2023
/
Accepted: 23 March 2023
/
Published: 25 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Flavours and Fragrances)
Abstract
:Odor is an important characteristic of walnut oil; walnut oil aromas from different varieties smell differently. In order to compare the differences of volatile flavor characteristics in different varieties of walnut oil, the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) of walnut oil from five different walnut varieties in Northwest China were detected and analyzed using headspace gas chromatography–ion mobility spectrometry (HS–GC–IMS). The results showed that 41 VOCs in total were identified in walnut oil from five different varieties, including 14 aldehydes, 8 alcohols, 4 ketones, and 2 esters. Walnut oil (WO) extracted from the “Zha343” variety was most abundant in VOCs. The relative odor activity value (ROAV) analysis showed that aldehydes were the main aroma substances of walnut oil; specifically, hexanal, pentanal, and heptanal were the most abundant. Fingerprints and heat map analysis indicated that WO extracted from the “Xin2”, “185”, “Xin’guang”, and “Zha343” varieties, but not from the “Xinfeng” variety, had characteristic markers. The relative content differences of eight key VOCs in WO from five varieties can be directly compared by Kruskal–Wallis tests, among which the distribution four substances, hexanal (M), hexanal (D), pentanal (M), (E)-2-hexanal (M), presented extremely significant differences (P<0.01). According to the results of the principal component analysis (PCA), WO extracted from the “Zha343” variety was distinct from the other four varieties; in addition, WO extracted from the “Xin2” variety exhibited similarity to WO extracted from the “185” variety, and WO extracted from the “Xinfeng” variety showed similarity to WO extracted from the “Xin’guang” variety. These results reveal that there are certain differences in the VOCs extracted from five different WO varieties, making it feasible to distinguish different varieties of walnut oil or to rapidly detect walnut oil quality based on its volatile substances profile.
1. Introduction
Walnuts (Juglans regia L.), together with almonds, cashews, and hazelnuts, are the world’s four most popular tree nuts; walnut is one of the key economic forest trees in China. Walnut kernels are rich in oil (65–70%) and contain large amounts of polyunsaturated fatty acids (61.8–75.3%), including 62.2% linoleic acid and 13.5% oleic acid. Moreover, walnuts also contain a variety of vitamins and mineral elements [1,2]. Walnut ingredients are safe and suitable for long-term consumption [3,4]. Flavor is an important sensory characteristic of oil, which directly affects its acceptance by consumers. Contemporary research on the flavor of walnut oil has mainly focused on the composition of odor compounds [5,6]. However, there is few report on the differences in volatile components and key flavor substances among different varieties. So, it is going to be crucial to select a scientific analytical method for the extraction and comparative study of VOCs of WO.
Multiple advanced methods have been developed and used to analyze volatile organic compounds, such as but not limited to the following methods: (1) gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC–MS), which limits the extraction of high boiling point compounds and has a limited separation efficiency of one dimensional GC–MS when it comes to the trace compounds [7]; (2) comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC × GC–MS) [8], which increases resolution and the significant separation improvement over 1D GC but provides large peak capacity although there is still some overlap [9,10]; (3) electronic nose [11], which is difficult to replace either complex analytical equipment or odor panels but supplements both of them, relying on the complex and diverse sensor array; additionally, its sensitivity and specificity are lower than MS. Among many VOC detection technologies, HS–GC–IMS has a distinct advantage in terms of the high resolution provided with gas chromatography and the high sensitivity conferred with ion transfer spectroscopy for the rapid detection of trace VOCs in samples [12], and no sample pretreatment [13,14]. Recently, with the development of an ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) library and the increase in relevant researchers, this technology has been greatly expanded and applied in the fields of food safety detection [15,16,17], environmental monitoring [18], medical diagnosis [19], and biomolecular determination [20,21,22]. Generally, GC–MS is recommended for the qualitative and quantitative analysis of VOCs, and GC–IMS is preferred to contrast differences between samples, due to its advantage of atlas visualization. Consequently, in this study, the VOCs of walnut oil samples from five of the most widely planted walnut varieties in Xinjiang were determined and analyzed using HS–GC–IMS. Further analyses were carried out using ROAV and PCA to identify and compare the key aroma components of walnut oil from different varieties. This study explored the feasibility of effectively distinguishing different varieties of walnut oil based on volatile substances and provided a theoretical basis for walnut oil production, processing, and quality control.
2. Results and Discussion
2.1. GC–IMS Spectrum Analysis
A top view of the three-dimensional spectrum generated using the reporter plug-in program in LAV analysis software is presented in Figure 1a. In order to perform a visual comparison of the sample spectrum, the spectrum of one sample was selected as the reference, which was then deducted from the spectrum of other samples [23]. For convenient observation, we chose the spectrum of sample A to be the reference. As shown in Figure 1b, if the VOC content is consistent with reference sample A, it is white after color deduction; red or blue indicate that the concentration of the substance is higher or lower than that in the reference, respectively. From Figure 1b, it can be observed that after color deduction, some differences in spectrograms of the five samples were reflected by the presence and depth of red and blue. The majority of characteristic signals of the five samples mainly occurred at the retention times of 100−300 s, this is similar to the analysis result of perilla seed oil [24]. Specifically, in the green square, the spectra of samples C and D showed more blue data points, whereas spectra of samples B and E showed more red data points, although the color of sample B was much lighter. In the red square, spectra colors of samples B, C, and D were nearly white, with only a few scattered red data points. In addition, compared with sample A, the VOCs marked with black and red circles were of lower content in sample B, C, D, and E, and the VOCs marked with pink and purple circles were of higher content. This was particularly notable for sample E.
2.2. Comparison of VOCs Fingerprints in Walnut Oil from Five Different Varieties
In order to clarify which substances were different, the characteristic flavor fingerprints of five different varieties walnut oil were constructed in the LAV program. In Figure 2, each row represents all signal peaks selected from a walnut oil sample, and each column represents the signal peak of the same VOC in different walnut oil samples. Letters M and D after the substance name represent monomers and dimers of the substance, respectively. All peaks were selected for comparative analysis. It can be seen directly from Figure 2 that the VOCs of walnut oil from five varieties were quite different. Specifically, substances in the red frame had the highest content in sample E. The content of 1-penten-3-ol in sample D was the highest. The content of substances in yellow frame was the highest in sample B. The content of substances in orange frame was the highest in sample A. However, there were also common VOCs among walnut oil from different varieties, such as hexanal (which was considered to be an important indicator of flavor deterioration, since its level was positively correlated with bitter and rancid taste [25]), pentanal (with the coffee, nut-like odor [7]), 1-octen-3-ol (which presented mushroom and earthy notes and could be used as the potential marker of walnut oil quality [7]), ethanol (which resulted from aerobic fermentation in the olives samples from Spain [17]), and undefined compound “9”. VOCs were the most abundant in walnut oil E. The diversity in these flavor substances makes it possible to distinguish between different varieties of oil.
2.3. Qualitative Analysis of VOCs of Walnut Oil from Five Different Varieties
As shown in Table 1, 50 VOCs in total were detected in five different varieties of walnut oil; 41 VOCs were identified, including 14 aldehydes, 8 alcohols, 4 ketones, and 2 esters. Hao et al. [7] reported that 50 volatile compounds were tentatively identified and quantified in walnut kernel samples using GC–MS, which included 14 aldehydes, 7 alcohols, 4 alkenes, 5 pyrazines, 3 furans, 1 acids, 5 esters, 5 ketones, and 6 other compounds. Among them, 12 compounds are consistent with the results of this study, except for the 9 unidentified components. Considering that his results were for the VOC detection of raw walnut kernels while this study is for the VOC detection of cold pressed walnut oil, it is possible that certain changes in the VOCs may occur during the processing of walnut oil. Certainly, further research is needed.
Moreover, it is also consistent with a prior report by Martỉnez [26] in which saturated and unsaturated aldehydes were most common VOCs in walnut oils, representing 55% to 81% of the total VOCs. The major aldehyde components present in virgin walnut oils are theoretically related with hydroperoxide precursors, which produce hexanal, 2-heptenal, octanal, nonanal, 2-decenal, and 2-undecenal [5,27].
2.4. PCA of Walnut Oil from Five Different Varieties
PCA is a dimensionality reduction method which determines the most contributing factors and the principal components. A spatial distribution map of the PCA can best reflect the differences between components [29]. The ionic peak intensity was taken as the characteristic parameter variable of PCA; it was performed on 15 samples from five different varieties (shown in Figure 3). The figure visualizes the differences between different samples. As shown, principal component 1 (PC1) (50%) and PC2 (33%) were extracted, adding up to 83%, which accounted for the vast majority of the original data information. The graph visualizes the differences between samples; a short distance between the samples means a small difference, and a long distance means a clear difference [24]. Furthermore, there was no overlap between samples, and all the data points showed regional distribution characteristics. This indicated that the VOCs of each sample were quite different. The data point distance between sample E and sample A was the largest; the distance between sample E and sample B was second largest; and the distance between sample E and sample C was the smallest. In addition, data points of sample E were distributed in the first quadrant; these data indicated that sample E was quite different from the other four samples. According to the data point distribution distances, sample A showed similarity to sample B, and sample C showed similarity to sample D.
2.5. Heat Map Analysis
In order to more accurately determine the differences in VOCs for different varieties of walnut oil, a heatmap was drawn using the R studio software (v1.2.13). This reflected the differences in the concentration of volatile compounds in the tested samples.
As shown in Figure 4, 50 VOCs were compared in the generation of a heatmap. Each row in the figure represents a different aroma compound, and each column represents a different oil sample. The dark red represents a high content; light red represents a low content; dark blue represents a low content; and light blue, as well as blanks, represent no detection. When a substance in the sample is exclusive or its content is higher than other samples, the substance can be designated as a characteristic marker of the sample. Considering the large amount of information and complex identification of all sample characteristic flavor substances in the fingerprint comparison, the differences in characteristic flavor substances in different varieties of walnut oil samples were further analyzed through heat map analysis to obtain their characteristic VOC markers. Figure 4 clearly indicates that, except for nine unidentified compounds, isopropyl acetate was the characteristic marker of sample A, which confers that fruity notes [7] belongs to the ester family. Most esters in WO are formed through esterification of various alcohols and carboxylic acids [8]. Acetone, 3-methylbutanol, and 1-hexanol (presented herbaceous and green aromas [7], which was also found in roasted almonds [30]) were the characteristic markers of sample B, and alcohols in WO are presumably produced by fat oxidation or aldehyde reduction [8]; 1-penten-3-ol was the characteristic marker of sample D; pentanal, n-nonanal, (E)-2-octenal, octanal, (E)-2-heptenal, 1-octen-3-ol, heptanal, 2-heptanone, (E)-2-hexenal, hexanal, (E)-2-pentenal, 3-methylbutanal, 2-methylbutanal, (Z)-3-hexen-1-ol, and 2-hexanone were the characteristic markers of sample E. No characteristic marker was detected for sample C in this heat map.
2.6. Analysis of Key Aroma Components of Walnut Oil from Different Varieties
The overall flavor of walnut oil was determined by the relative content of volatile components and its sensory threshold. Only certain compounds significantly contributed to the overall flavor of walnut oil; these compounds were key flavor substances of the sample. When measuring the contribution of volatile substances to flavor, it is not sufficiently comprehensive or accurate to judge only the relative content of substances. Standard research samples often contain dozens, or even hundreds, of volatile compounds; thus, performing the absolute quantification of the odor activity value is very time-consuming and expensive. Therefore, the ROAV was calculated to further analyze the contribution of volatile substances to the flavor of walnut oil. According to the sensory threshold obtained from the literature review [31], volatile substances with an ROAV greater than 0.1 in the volatile substance composition of walnut oil were identified. As shown in Table 2, hexanal and pentanal were the substances which contributed most to the flavor in the five different varieties of walnut oil, followed by heptanal. Elmore [25] studied the aroma volatiles of walnuts from China, Chile, and Ukraine using GC–MS analysis; the results showed that Ukrainian and Chinese nuts were similar quantitatively and qualitatively. The five compounds present at the highest levels in both nuts were the same. Hexanal was the largest compound in both samples, followed by 1-pentanol, pentanal, 1-hexanol, and then 1-penten-3-ol. Kalogiouri [32] explored the volatile metabolome of conventional and organic walnut oils through solid-phase microextraction and analysis with GC–MS combined with chemometrics; the results showed that hexanal was the most abundant volatile compound detected in conventional (0.212–0.403 μg kg−1) and organic walnut oil (2.923–5.340 μg kg−1). Zhou [33] carried out 10-day accelerated storage to investigate the evolution of the volatile profiles of walnut oils from three cultivars (cvs. Santai, Xiangling, and Qingxiang); the result showed that, in the fresh walnut oil, hexanal was the most abundant compound in oils from each cultivar. These conclusions are similar to our study, but there are also differences, which may be due to the different varieties, origins, and processing techniques.
In addition, Kruskal–Wallis tests were performed to gain further insight into the distribution of the key VOCs of samples A, B, C, D, and E. Then, we derived the box plot shown in Figure 5. The relative content differences of eight key VOCs in five varieties of walnut oil can be directly compared in Figure 5. Furthermore, the distribution of the relative contents of four substances, hexanal (M), hexanal (D), pentanal (M), (E)-2-hexanal (M), in the five varieties of walnut oil presented extremely significant differences (p < 0.01). Additionally, the distribution of the relative contents of pentanal (D), heptanal (M), and octanal (M) showed significant differences (0.01 ≤ p < 0.05).
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Materials
Five varieties of walnut origin from two regions of Xinjiang were collected; the information from the samples is shown in Table 3. The sampled walnut trees were planted artificially. According to the requirements of walnut cultivation technology, farm manure and pesticide were applied in key phenological periods. All the walnuts were harvested in September 2021 and preserved at 4 °C to prevent deterioration before use after peeling and drying. The appearances of the five varieties of walnut are shown in Figure 6.
3.2. Preparation of Walnut Oil
Walnuts were shelled, and the walnut kernels were manually picked to remove the hollow, moldy, and abnormal walnut kernels. Virgin walnut oil was obtained using the hydraulic press method. Briefly, 30 kg of walnut kernels was pressed at 30 MPa for 45 min at room temperature. Then, the virgin walnut oil was centrifuged at 4 °C and 10,000 rpm for 15 min to obtain walnut oil samples for testing. Subsequently, a 5.00 mL sample was put into a 20 mL headspace vial. Additionally, three parallel analyses were performed for each sample.
3.3. HS–GC–IMS Analysis
The VOCs of walnut oil from five varieties were determined with HS–GC–IMS, using a FlavourSpec® Gas Chromatograph Analyser (G.A.S., Dortmund, Germany) equipped with an automatic headspace sampling unit.
The GC-IMS conditions that were conducted refer to the method of Wang et al. [24] with minor modifications.
The GC was equipped with a MXT-5 column (15 m, 0.53 mm ID, 1.0 μm df). Samples were incubated at 80 °C for 15 min, with the rotary speed of 500 rpm. Then, 500 μL of headspace extracted sample was automatically injected via a heated syringe at 85 °C. Before each analysis, the syringe was automatically flushed for 0.5 min to avoid cross contamination. The carrier gas flow was programmed as follows: initial flow rate of 2 mL/min, which increased linearly to 10 mL/min within 8 min after 2 min, then increased linearly to 100 mL/min within 10 min, and finally increased linearly to 150 mL/min within 5 min. The analytes were separated in the column at 60 °C in 25 min. The carrier gas is high-purity (≥99.999%) nitrogen. It was then ionized in the IMS ionization chamber with a tritium gas source (6.5 KeV) in positive ion mode. The 10 cm drift tube was operated at a constant voltage (350 V/cm) at 45 °C with a nitrogen flow of 150 mL/min.
The identification of VOCs was performed by comparing the drift time with the GC-IMS library, and the relative content is determined by the proportion of the average relative peak area of each substance in the sum of the average peak area of the variety.
3.4. Determination of Key Flavor Compounds
The sensory threshold and relative content of volatile compounds jointly determine their action intensity in odor. The contribution of volatile substances to the flavor of the sample was determined by calculating the ROAV. It is generally believed that volatile substances with ROAV ≥ 1 are key flavor substances in the sample; 0.1 ≤ ROAV < 1 can modify the overall flavor of the sample; ROAV < 0.1 have limited effects on the flavor of the sample [34]. The ROAV of the component that contributed most to the flavor of the sample is defined as 100, and the ROAV of other components is calculated according to the following formula:
where CA is the relative content /% of each component, TA is the sensory threshold/(mg/kg) of each component, CStan is the relative content/% of the compound that contributes the most to the overall flavor, and TStan is the sensory threshold/(mg/kg) of the compound that contributes the most to the overall flavor.
3.5. Data Processing
Laboratory analytical viewer (LAV) analysis software equipped with an instrument, the NIST 2014 database, and the IMS database were used for the qualitative analysis of volatile compounds and to establish the VOC fingerprints. The Dynamic PCA plug-in was used for PCA processing, and the Matching matrix in LAV software was used for similarity analysis. A clustering heat map and box plot of the dataset were drawn using R studio (v1.2.13). Other charts were drawn using Excel 2010 and Origin 8.0.
4. Conclusions
In conclusion, 50 VOCs in walnut oil from five cultivars were detected, and 41 VOCs were specifically identified, including 14 aldehydes, 8 alcohols, 4 ketones, and 2 esters. The highest relative content among these VOCs was hexanal (relative contents: A, 34.36%; B, 33.40%; C, 42.30%; D, 43.30%; E, 38.52%)
Among the identified VOCs, the contents of twenty substances in sample E were the highest. According to PCA, sample E was quite different from the other four samples.
The characteristic VOC markers of the four samples were obtained using heat map analysis. Specifically, isopropyl acetate was the characteristic marker of sample A; acetone, 3-methylbutanol, and 1-hexanol were the characteristic markers of sample B; 1-penten-3-ol was the characteristic marker of sample D; fifteen substances, including pentanal and n-nonanal, were the characteristic markers of sample E; and there was no characteristic marker detected for sample C.
The key flavor substances of the sample were defined by calculating the ROAV. Hexanal and pentanal were the substances which contributed the most to flavor in walnut oil from five different varieties, followed by heptanal.
The relative content differences of eight key VOCs in walnut oil from five varieties could be directly compared using the box plot. The relative content distribution of hexanal (M), hexanal (D), pentanal (M), and (E)-2-hexanal (M) in walnut oil from five varieties represented a very pronounced statistically significant difference (p < 0.01). Additionally, the relative content distributions of pentanal (D), heptanal (M), octanal (M) showed significant differences (0.01 ≤ p < 0.05).
These results are conducive for the rapid detection of walnut oil quality, the identification of walnut food authenticity, and distinguishing the varieties of walnut oil.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, L.S.; Data curation, L.S. and M.M.; Formal analysis, L.S. and Y.Q.; Funding acquisition, L.S.; Investigation, M.M.; Resources, K.C.; Supervision, Y.Q.; Writing—Original draft, L.S.; Writing—review and editing, L.S. and Y.Q. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research work was supported by: Basic research business funding project of public welfare research institutes in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region: KY2021116/KY2022020;Key R&D projects in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region: 2022B02048;National key R&D plan: 2022YFD1000104-02.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
All the available data are incorporated in this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Martínez, M.L.; Penci, M.C.; Ixtaina, V.; Ribotta, P.D.; Maestri, D. Effect of natural and synthetic antioxidants on the oxidative stability of walnut oil under different storage conditions. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 51, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uzma, N.S.; Mir, J.I.; Ahmed, N.; Khalid, M.F. Assessment of germplasm diversity and genetic relationships among walnut (Juglans regia L.) genotypes through microsatellite markers. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2018, 17, 339–350. [Google Scholar]
- Calvo, P.; Lozano, M.; Espinosa-Mansilla, A.; González-Gómez, D. In-vitro evaluation of the availability of ϖ-3 and ϖ-6 fatty acids and tocopherols from microencapsulated walnut oil. Food Res. Int. 2012, 48, 316–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, H.; Xu, J.; Lu, X.Z.; Xu, Y.Y.; Joe, M.R.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, F.J. Development and characterization of monoglyceride oleogels prepared with crude and refined walnut oil—ScienceDirect. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 154, 112769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ojeda-Amador, R.M.; Salvador, M.D.; Gómez-Alonso, S.; Fregapane, G. Characterization of virgin walnut oils and their residual cakes produced from different varieties. Food Res. Int. 2018, 108, 396–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdallah, I.B.; Tlili, N.; Martinez-Force, E.; Rubio, A.G.P.; Perez-Camino, M.C.; Albouchi, A.; Boukhchina, S. Content of carotenoids, tocopherols, sterols, triterpenic and aliphatic alcohols, and volatile compounds in six walnuts (Juglans regia L.)varieties. Food Chem. 2015, 173, 972–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hao, J.; XU, X.L.; Jin, F.; Regenstein, J.M.; Wang, F.J. HS-SPME GC–MS characterization of volatiles in processed walnuts and their oxidative stability. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 43, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Y.; Bi, S.; Niu, X.Y.; Chen, Y.M.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, Q. Comparison of aroma active compounds in cold- and hot-pressed walnut oil by comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography-olfactory-mass spectrometry and headspace-gas chromatography-ion mobility spectrometry. Food Res. Int. 2023, 163, 112208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hurtado, C.; Parastar, H.; Matamoros, V.; Piña, B.; Tauler, R.; Bayona, J.M. Linking the morphological and metabolomic response of Lactuca sativa L exposed to emerging contaminants using GC×GC-MS and chemometric tools. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 6546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Prebihalo, S.E.; Berrier, K.L.; Freye, C.E.; Bahaghighat, H.D.; Moore, N.R.; Pinkerton, D.K.; Synovec, R.E. Multidimensional Gas Chromatography: Advances in Instrumentation, Chemometrics, and Applications. Anal. Chem. 2017, 90, 505–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Frank, R.; Nicolae, B.; Udo, W. Electronic nose: Current status and future trends. Chem. Rev. 2008, 108, 705–725. [Google Scholar]
- Gu, S.; Zhang, J.; Wang, J.; Wang, X.Y.; Du, D.D. Recent development of HS-GC-IMS technology in rapid and nondestructive detection of quality and contamination in agri-food products. Trends Anal. Chem. 2021, 144, 116435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garrido-Delgado, R.; Dobao-Prieto, M.M.; Arce, L.; Aguilar, J.; Cumplido, J.L.; Valcárcel, M. Ion mobility spectrometry versus classical physico-chemical analysis for assessing the shelf life of extra virgin olive oil according to container type and storage conditions. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 2179–2188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arroyo-Manzanares, N.; Martín-Gómez, A.; Jurado-Campos, N.; Garrido-Delgado, R.; Arce, C.; Arce, L. Target vs spectral fingerprint data analysis of Iberian ham samples for avoiding labelling fraud using headspace-gas chromatography-ion mobility spectrometry. Food Chem. 2017, 246, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karpas, Z. Applications of ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) in the field of foodomics. Food Res. Int. 2013, 54, 1146–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arroyo-Manzanares, N.; García-Nicolás, M.; Castell, A.; Campillo, N.; Viñas, P.; López-García, I.; Hernández-Córdoba, M. Untargeted headspace gas chromatography—Ion mobility spectrometry analysis for detection of adulterated honey. Talanta 2019, 205, 120123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerhardt, N.; Birkenmeier, M.; Sanders, D.; Rohn, S.; Weller, P. Resolution-optimized headspace gas chromatography-ion mobility spectrometry (HS-GC-IMS) for non-targeted olive oil profiling. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2017, 409, 3933–3942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Johnson, P.V.; Beegle, L.W.; Kim, H.I.; Eiceman, G.A.; Kanik, I. Ion mobility spectrometry in space exploration. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 2007, 262, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campuzano, I.D.; Lippens, J.L. Ion mobility in the pharmaceutical industry: An established biophysical technique or still niche? Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2018, 42, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mairinger, T.; Causon, T.J.; Hann, S. The potential of ion mobility–mass spectrometry for non-targeted metabolomics. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2018, 42, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Puton, J.; Namieśnik, J. Ion mobility spectrometry: Current status and application for chemical warfare agents detection. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2016, 85, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vautz, W.; Franzke, J.; Zampolli, S.; Elmi, I.; Liedtke, S. On the potential of ion mobility spectrometry coupled to GC pre-separation—A tutorial. Anal. Chim. Acta 2018, 1024, 52–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, Y.; Li, P.; Liao, L.; Qin, Y.; Jiang, L.; Liu, Y. Characteristic fingerprints and volatile flavor compound variations in Liuyang Douchi during fermentation via HS-GC-IMS and HS-SPME-GC-MS. Food Chem. 2021, 361, 130055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Zhang, Z.J.; Li, H.Z.; Hou, T.Y.; Zhao, Y.N.; Li, H. Effects of ethanol, activated carbon, and activated kaolin on perilla seed oil: Volatile organic compounds, physicochemical characteristics, and fatty acid composition. J. Food Sci. 2021, 86, 4393–4404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elmore, J.S.; Nisyrios, I.; Mottram, D.S. Analysis of the headspace aroma compounds of walnuts (Juglans regia L.). Flavour Fragr. J. 2005, 20, 501–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez, M.L.; Maestri, D.M. Oil chemical variation in walnut (Juglans regia L.) genotypes grown in Argentina. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2008, 110, 1183–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torres, M.M.; Martínez, M.L.; Maestri, D.M. A Multivariate Study of the Relationship Between Fatty Acids and Volatile Flavor Components in Olive and Walnut Oils. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2005, 82, 105–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morales, M.T.; Luna, G.; Aparicio, R. Comparative study of virgin olive oil sensory defects. Food Chem. 2005, 91, 293–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melucci, D.; Bendini, A.; Tesini, F.; Barbieri, S.; Zappi, A.; Vichi, S.; Conte, L.; Toschi, T.G. Rapid direct analysis to discriminate geographic origin of extra virgin olive oils by flash gas chromatography electronic nose and chemometrics. Food Chem. 2016, 204, 263–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xiao, L.; Lee, J.; Zhang, G.; Ebeler, S.E.; Wickramasinghe, N.; Seiber, J.; Mitchell, A.E. HS-SPME GC/MS characterization of volatiles in raw and dry-roasted almonds (Prunus dulcis). Food Chem. 2014, 151, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Giovanelli, S.; Giusti, G.; Cioni, P.L.; Minissale, P.; Ciccarelli, D.; Pistelli, L. Aroma profile and essential oil composition of Rhus coriaria fruits from four Sicilian sites of collection. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 97, 166–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalogiouri, N.P.; Manousi, N.; Rosenberg, E.; Zachariadis, G.A.; Paraskevopoulou, A.; Samanidou, V. Exploring the volatile metabolome of conventional and organic walnut oils by solid-phase microextraction and analysis by GC-MS combined with chemometrics. Food Chem. 2021, 363, 130331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhou, Y.; Fan, W.; Chu, F.X.; Wang, C.Z.; Pei, D. Identifification of Volatile Oxidation Compounds as Potential Markers of Walnut Oil Quality. J. Food Sci. 2018, 83, 2745–2752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wei, J.P.; Zhang, Y.X.; Wang, Y.W.; Ju, H.M.; Niu, C.; Song, Z.H.; Yuan, Y.H.; Yue, T.L. Assessment of chemical composition and sensorial properties of ciders fermented with different non-Saccharomyces yeasts in pure and mixed fermentations. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2020, 318, 108471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1.
(a): GC–IMS three-dimensional spectra of the VOCs in walnut oil from five different varieties; (b): Comparison of GC-IMS spectra of VOCs in of walnut oil from five different varieties (after color deduction).
Figure 1.
(a): GC–IMS three-dimensional spectra of the VOCs in walnut oil from five different varieties; (b): Comparison of GC-IMS spectra of VOCs in of walnut oil from five different varieties (after color deduction).
Figure 2.
Fingerprint (gallery plot) of characteristic VOCs in walnut oil from five different varieties (A: Xin2; B: 185; C: Xinfeng; D: Xin’guang; E: Zha343).
Figure 2.
Fingerprint (gallery plot) of characteristic VOCs in walnut oil from five different varieties (A: Xin2; B: 185; C: Xinfeng; D: Xin’guang; E: Zha343).
Figure 3.
PCA diagram of walnut oil from five different varieties((A: Xin2; B: 185; C: Xinfeng; D: Xin’guang; E: Zha343)).
Figure 3.
PCA diagram of walnut oil from five different varieties((A: Xin2; B: 185; C: Xinfeng; D: Xin’guang; E: Zha343)).
Figure 4.
Heat map of VOCs in walnut oil from five different varieties.
Figure 5.
Box plot of key VOCs (relative content) in walnut oil from five different varieties.
Figure 6.
The appearances of walnuts from five varieties.
Table 1.
Relative content of VOCs in walnut oil from five different varieties.
| Number | Compounds | CAS# | Molecular Formula | Retention Index | Retention Time (s) | Relative Content (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | E | ||||||
| 1 | n-Nonanal | C124196 | C9H18O | 1103.7 | 767.133 | 0.80 | 0.82 | 1.18 | 1.16 | 1.18 |
| 2 | (E)-2-Octenal | C2548870 | C8H14O | 1070 | 690.61 | 0.51 | 0.54 | 0.84 | 0.87 | 1.25 |
| 3 | Octanal(M) | C124130 | C8H16O | 1013 | 578.335 | 1.41 | 1.38 | 2.07 | 2.06 | 2.50 |
| 4 | Octanal(D) | C124130 | C8H16O | 1011.6 | 575.826 | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.26 |
| 5 | (E)-2-Heptenal(M) | C18829555 | C7H12O | 962 | 481.114 | 1.28 | 1.13 | 1.55 | 2.48 | 2.20 |
| 6 | (E)-2-Heptenal(D) | C18829555 | C7H12O | 960.6 | 478.605 | 0.26 | 0.18 | 0.22 | 0.37 | 0.45 |
| 7 | 1-Octen-3-ol | C3391864 | C8H16O | 993.2 | 542.583 | 0.37 | 0.45 | 0.52 | 0.55 | 0.61 |
| 8 | Heptanal(M) | C111717 | C7H14O | 900.7 | 380.185 | 1.36 | 1.45 | 1.88 | 1.95 | 2.16 |
| 9 | Heptanal(D) | C111717 | C7H14O | 901.3 | 381.061 | 0.13 | 0.10 | 0.17 | 0.16 | 0.30 |
| 10 | 2-Heptanone(M) | C110430 | C7H14O | 892.5 | 368.356 | 0.50 | 0.70 | 0.60 | 0.67 | 0.70 |
| 11 | 2-Heptanone(D) | C110430 | C7H14O | 891.2 | 366.603 | 0.09 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.23 |
| 12 | 1-Hexanol | C111273 | C6H14O | 881.4 | 353.897 | 0.22 | 0.53 | 0.31 | 0.32 | 0.24 |
| 13 | (E)-2-Hexenal | C6728263 | C6H10O | 852.7 | 319.285 | 0.48 | 0.50 | 0.63 | 0.74 | 0.58 |
| 14 | Hexanal(M) | C66251 | C6H12O | 794.1 | 258.823 | 13.03 | 12.65 | 13.25 | 14.98 | 10.16 |
| 15 | Hexanal(D) | C66251 | C6H12O | 796 | 260.575 | 21.33 | 20.75 | 29.05 | 28.32 | 28.36 |
| 16 | 1-Pentanol(M) | C71410 | C5H12O | 771.2 | 237.626 | 1.52 | 2.21 | 2.58 | 2.51 | 1.88 |
| 17 | 1-Pentanol(D) | C71410 | C5H12O | 772.1 | 238.462 | 0.19 | 0.44 | 0.43 | 0.37 | 0.39 |
| 18 | (E)-2-Pentenal | C1576870 | C5H8O | 741.5 | 211.989 | 0.49 | 0.58 | 0.72 | 1.01 | 0.90 |
| 19 | 3-Methylbutanol | C1576870 | C5H8O | 741.8 | 212.268 | 0.23 | 0.70 | 0.38 | 0.36 | 0.36 |
| 20 | (E)-2-pentenal | C123513 | C5H12O | 739.1 | 210.038 | 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.08 | 0.12 | 0.30 |
| 21 | 1-Penten-3-ol | C616251 | C5H10O | 689 | 173.255 | 0.98 | 0.93 | 1.09 | 1.68 | 1.05 |
| 22 | 2-Pentanone | C107879 | C5H10O | 684.4 | 170.925 | 0.17 | 0.25 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.16 |
| 23 | Pentanal(M) | C110623 | C5H10O | 697.2 | 178.808 | 6.20 | 5.81 | 7.16 | 7.55 | 5.31 |
| 24 | Pentanal(D) | C110623 | C5H10O | 695.9 | 177.956 | 3.19 | 3.23 | 5.92 | 5.05 | 7.91 |
| 25 | Isopropyl acetate(M) | C108214 | C5H10O2 | 657.2 | 157.714 | 1.56 | 1.68 | 0.76 | 0.88 | 1.02 |
| 26 | Isopropyl acetate(D) | C108214 | C5H10O2 | 656.2 | 157.288 | 1.06 | 0.68 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.06 |
| 27 | 3-Methylbutanal | C590863 | C5H10O | 651.3 | 155.001 | 0.67 | 1.12 | 0.95 | 1.21 | 1.47 |
| 28 | 2-Methylbutanal | C96173 | C5H10O | 656.9 | 157.608 | 0.16 | 0.43 | 0.20 | 0.23 | 0.72 |
| 29 | Ethyl acetate(M) | C141786 | C4H8O2 | 613.8 | 138.799 | 2.27 | 1.61 | 2.30 | 2.03 | 1.63 |
| 30 | Ethyl acetate(D) | C141786 | C4H8O2 | 614.9 | 139.227 | 1.32 | 1.02 | 0.83 | 0.43 | 1.28 |
| 31 | Ethyl methyl ketone(M) | C78933 | C4H8O | 597.2 | 132.173 | 4.88 | 4.61 | 3.46 | 4.33 | 2.39 |
| 32 | Ethyl methyl ketone(D) | C78933 | C4H8O | 593.3 | 130.677 | 8.74 | 7.89 | 1.86 | 1.87 | 3.94 |
| 33 | Butanal | C123728 | C4H8O | 602.1 | 134.097 | 2.81 | 2.35 | 1.12 | 0.78 | 1.83 |
| 34 | 1-Propanol | C71238 | C3H8O | 568 | 121.273 | 0.97 | 2.03 | 1.75 | 1.13 | 1.34 |
| 35 | Acetone | C67641 | C3H6O | 515.7 | 103.954 | 2.87 | 3.55 | 2.32 | 2.07 | 1.89 |
| 36 | Ethanol | C64175 | C2H6O | 486.7 | 95.438 | 5.53 | 6.37 | 5.69 | 4.09 | 3.72 |
| 37 | Isobutanol | C78831 | C4H10O | 632 | 146.463 | 0.37 | 1.21 | 0.81 | 0.84 | 1.10 |
| 38 | 3-Methyl-2-butenal | C107868 | C5H8O | 755.4 | 223.599 | 0.45 | 0.50 | 0.72 | 1.11 | 0.73 |
| 39 | 1 | unidentified | - | 1099.5 | 757.097 | 0.23 | 0.22 | 0.38 | 0.31 | 0.41 |
| 40 | 2 | unidentified | - | 945.3 | 451.217 | 0.17 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.29 | 0.39 |
| 41 | 3 | unidentified | - | 905.5 | 387.195 | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.29 | 0.26 | 0.30 |
| 42 | 4 | unidentified | - | 905.2 | 386.757 | 0.14 | 0.16 | 0.20 | 0.22 | 0.24 |
| 43 | 5 | unidentified | - | 882.7 | 355.65 | 0.18 | 0.47 | 0.12 | 0.17 | 0.17 |
| 44 | 6 | unidentified | - | 752.9 | 221.463 | 4.02 | 2.99 | 1.30 | 0.80 | 1.75 |
| 45 | 7 | unidentified | - | 752.9 | 221.463 | 0.74 | 0.71 | 0.56 | 0.54 | 1.16 |
| 46 | 8 | unidentified | - | 751.6 | 220.349 | 3.39 | 1.69 | 0.41 | 0.24 | 1.19 |
| 47 | 9 | unidentified | - | 517.2 | 104.419 | 1.99 | 2.14 | 2.08 | 1.75 | 1.39 |
| 48 | 2-Methyl-2-pentenal | C623369 | C6H10O | 827.2 | 291.404 | 0.08 | 0.22 | 0.20 | 0.16 | 0.16 |
| 49 | (Z)-3-Hexen-1-ol | C928961 | C6H12O | 852.9 | 319.566 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.20 | 0.20 |
| 50 | 2-Hexanone | C591786 | C6H12O | 782 | 247.67 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.07 |
Notes: - Not detected.
Table 2.
ROAV of VOCs in walnut oil from five different varieties.
| Number | Compounds | Threshold value (μg/kg) | ROAV | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | E | |||
| 1 | Octanal (M) | 0.7 | 2.17 | 2.18 | 2.34 | 2.39 | 2.90 |
| 2 | (E)-2-Heptenal (M) | 3 | 0.46 | 0.42 | 0.41 | 0.67 | 0.60 |
| 3 | (E)-2-Heptenal (D) | 3 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.12 |
| 4 | Heptanal (M) | 0.26 | 5.63 | 6.16 | 5.72 | 6.11 | 6.75 |
| 5 | Hexanal (M) | 0.23 | 61.08 | 60.95 | 45.61 | 52.89 | 35.81 |
| 6 | Hexanal (D) | 0.23 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 7 | Pentanal (M) | 0.85 | 7.87 | 7.58 | 6.67 | 7.21 | 5.06 |
| 8 | Pentanal (D) | 0.85 | 4.05 | 4.21 | 5.51 | 4.83 | 7.55 |
| 9 | Ethyl acetate (M) | 5 | 0.49 | 0.36 | 0.36 | 0.33 | 0.26 |
| 10 | Ethyl acetate (D) | 5 | 0.29 | 0.23 | 0.13 | 0.07 | 0.21 |
Table 3.
Information of walnut from five varieties.
| Identification | Varieties | Place of Origin | Harvest Time | Single Fruit Weight/g | Shape | Evaluation of Surface Texture |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Xin2 | Kashgar, Xinjiang | 15 September 2021 | 15.90–18.40 | Ovoid nut | Smooth shell surface, tight chink |
| B | 185 | Aksur, Xinjiang | 22 September 2021 | 11.20–14.20 | Round nut, has a spike | Smooth shell surface, loose chink |
| C | Xinfeng | Kashgar, Xinjiang | 18 September 2021 | 12.60–14.90 | Short oval nut, has a spike | Obvious surface gullies, tight chink |
| D | Xin’guang | Kashgar, Xinjiang | 18 September 2021 | 16.80–17.50 | Round nut | Smooth shell surface, tight chink |
| E | Zha343 | Kashgar, Xinjiang | 12 September 2021 | 12.40–15.30 | Ovoid nut | Smooth shell surface, tight chink |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Sun, L.; Qi, Y.; Meng, M.; Cui, K. Comparative Study on the Volatile Organic Compounds and Characteristic Flavor Fingerprints of Five Varieties of Walnut Oil in Northwest China Using Using Headspace Gas Chromatography-Ion Mobility Spectrometry. Molecules 2023, 28, 2949. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28072949
AMA Style
Sun L, Qi Y, Meng M, Cui K. Comparative Study on the Volatile Organic Compounds and Characteristic Flavor Fingerprints of Five Varieties of Walnut Oil in Northwest China Using Using Headspace Gas Chromatography-Ion Mobility Spectrometry. Molecules. 2023; 28(7):2949. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28072949
Chicago/Turabian StyleSun, Lina, Yanlong Qi, Meng Meng, and Kuanbo Cui. 2023. "Comparative Study on the Volatile Organic Compounds and Characteristic Flavor Fingerprints of Five Varieties of Walnut Oil in Northwest China Using Using Headspace Gas Chromatography-Ion Mobility Spectrometry" Molecules 28, no. 7: 2949. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28072949
APA StyleSun, L., Qi, Y., Meng, M., & Cui, K. (2023). Comparative Study on the Volatile Organic Compounds and Characteristic Flavor Fingerprints of Five Varieties of Walnut Oil in Northwest China Using Using Headspace Gas Chromatography-Ion Mobility Spectrometry. Molecules, 28(7), 2949. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28072949
