Next Article in Journal
The Snacking Chameleon: Psychological Proximity Increases Imitation of Food Intake Independently of Brand Choice
Previous Article in Journal
Physical, Barrier, Mechanical, and Biodegradability Properties of Modified Starch Films with Nut By-Products Extracts
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 9
Issue 2
10.3390/foods9020227
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Identification of Key Off-Flavor Compounds in Thermally Treated Watermelon Juice via Gas Chromatography–Olfactometry–Mass Spectrometry, Aroma Recombination, and Omission Experiments

by
Xiao Yang
,
Fan Yang
,
Ye Liu
*,
Jian Li
and
Huan-Lu Song
Beijing Engineering and Technology Research Center of Food Additives, School of Food and Health, Beijing Technology and Business University, No. 11, Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100048, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2020, 9(2), 227; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9020227
Submission received: 5 February 2020 / Revised: 15 February 2020 / Accepted: 17 February 2020 / Published: 20 February 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Food Analytical Methods)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Thermally treated watermelon juice (TW) presents a strong unpleasant smell, resulting in poor consumer acceptance. It is necessary to identify the key off-flavor compounds in TW. Solid-phase microextraction (SPME) and solvent-assisted flavor evaporation (SAFE) coupled with gas chromatography–olfactometry–mass spectrometry (GC–O–MS) were applied to the extraction and analysis of the volatile compounds in TW. Five aroma-active compounds and seven off-flavor compounds were quantitatively analyzed by the standard curve method. Based on the flavor dilution factor (FD), odor attribute, odor activity value (OAV) of volatile compounds, and partial least-squares regression (PLSR) analysis, seven key off-flavor compounds were preliminarily identified as follows: (E)-2-heptenal, decanal, octanol, diisopropyl disulfide, hexanol, (E)-2-decenal, and (E)-2-octenol. Aroma recombination proved that these off-flavor compounds above had a negative impact on the overall flavor in TW. Omission experiments were taken to confirm them further. Finally, octanol, diisopropyl disulfide, and (E)-2-decenal were identified as the most potent off-flavor compounds in TW.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Watermelon is a desirable fruit owing to its nutritional benefits. In China, the annual planting area and yield are approximately 1.85 million hm2 and 74.84 million tons, respectively, which accounts for 53.3% and 67.4% of the global production in 2017 [1]. Watermelon contains minerals, vitamins, and specific amino acids [2], and is especially rich in lycopene [3]. Consumption of lycopene-rich food may reduce the prevalence of certain types of cancers [4]. Hence, watermelon products have wide market potential.
Heating watermelon juice considerably affects its quality owing to its thermo-sensitive nature [5]. However, thermal treatment is a necessary step in industrial juice processing. The “steamed flavor” after thermal treatment affects consumer acceptance [6]. This considerably hinders the industrial processing of watermelon juice.
To identify the off-flavor compounds in thermally treated watermelon juice (TW), it is necessary to understand the mechanism of flavor change. Current studies have focused on the aroma of fresh watermelon (FW) or its juice. The flavor compounds in watermelon juice are mainly C6 and C9 aldehydes, ketones, and alcohols, such as nonanal, (E)-6-nonenol, (Z,Z)-2,6-nonadienal, (Z)-3-nonenal, (E,Z)-2,6-nonadienal, and (Z,Z)-3,6-nonadienal [7,8]. Development of off-flavor is an unavoidable issue in the thermal processing of watermelon juice; however, to the best of our knowledge, this is yet to be examined in TW. Investigations regarding off-flavors are mainly associated with other food materials. Dimethyl disulfide, dimethyl sulfide, dimethyl trisulfide, and 3-(methylthio) propanal contribute to the cooked flavor of melon juice during thermal processing [9]. The sulfur compounds and C5 aldehydes accumulate in winter melon juice during boiling [10]. Sensory experiments have shown that 2-methoxy-4-vinylphenol and dimethyl sulfide contribute to the typical stale off-flavor in stored orange juice (37 °C for four weeks) [11]. Hydrogen sulfide, dimethyl sulfide, methanethiol, and dimethyl trisulfide are important compounds contributing to cooked flavor in pasteurized milk [12].
In the present study, the aroma profiles of FW and TW were compared to identify the off-flavor compounds. The key off-flavor compounds in TW were determined using gas chromatography–olfactometry–mass spectrometry (GC–O–MS), odor attributes, and partial least-squares regression (PLSR) analysis. Furthermore, aroma recombination and omission experiments were performed to verify the key off-flavor compounds.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Chemicals

n-Alkanes (C7-C30) for the retention index (RI) calculation, 2-methyl-3-heptanone (99%, internal standard), (E,Z)-2,6-nonadienal (95%), (E)-2-heptenal (97%), decanal (≥98%), octanol (≥99%), (E,Z)-2,6-nonadienol (≥95%), (E)-2-octenal (≥95%), diisopropyl disulfide (≥96%), hexanol (≥99%), (E)-2-nonenal (97%), (E)-2-decenal (≥95%), nonanol (98%), and (E)-2-octenol (97%) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Beijing, China). Hexane, diethyl ether, n-pentane, and anhydrous Na2SO4 used for extraction and separation of flavor substances were all analytical reagent and provided by Banxia Scientific Instruments Co. Ltd. (Beijing, China).

2.2. Preparation of Samples

Qilin is the main cultivar with a large yield in China. Twenty watermelons (cultivar: Qilin, seedless, weighing approx. 0.4 kg each; locality of growth: Panggezhuang Town, Daxing District, Beijing) were one-time selected and purchased from Beijing Yonghui Supermarket randomly on June 10th, 2018. The pulp was blended (Philips, HR2860, Zhuhai, China), and quickly filtered through a nylon mesh (200 mesh). FW was analyzed immediately. Batches of 100 mL juice were vacuum-packed with an odorless vacuum packaging bag with aluminum foil immediately and frozen using liquid nitrogen. All the packed juices (100 mL for each bag) were stored at −80 °C for further analysis. TW was processed using a water bath at 70 °C for 20 min according to the pasteurization method (the juice flavor changed greatly under this condition through the pre-experiments. A thermometer was inserted into the juice through the bag and timing began when the center temperature of juice reached 70 °C) [13].

2.3. Extraction of Flavor Compounds From Watermelon Juice by Solid-Phase Microextraction (SPME)

Volatile organic compounds of a 10 mL sample of watermelon juice with 1 μL internal standard (2-methyl-3-heptanone, 0.816 μg/μL) added in a 40 mL headspace vial (Agilent, Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA) were extracted manually with SPME using a 2 cm, 50/30 μm divinylbenzene/carboxen/polydimethylsiloxane fiber (Supelco, Inc., Bellefonte, PA, USA). Samples were allowed to equilibrate for 20 min at 40 °C before collection for 40 min with continuous stirring at 100 rpm (J&K Scientific Ltd., Beijing, China) [14].

2.4. Extraction of Flavor Compounds From Watermelon Juice by Solvent-Assisted Flavor Evaporation (SAFE)

One hundred milliliters of watermelon juice was mixed with 150 mL diethyl ether-pentane mixture (2:1, v/v) and stirred for 8 h. Fifty microliters of 2-methyl-3-heptanone (0.816 μg/μL) were added as the internal standard. Then, volatiles were extracted from the solvent extracts by distillation for 2 h at 10−4 torr. The solvent layer was concentrated to 2 mL with a Vigreux column (Heqi Glass Instrument Co., Ltd, Shanghai, China) after being dried through an anhydrous Na2SO4 column. The volume further reduced to 0.2 mL under a flow of nitrogen [15].

2.5. GC–O–MS Analysis

GC–MS (7890A-7000B; Agilent Technologies Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA) with an olfactometer (Sniffer 9000; Brechühler, Schlieren, Switzerland) was used to analyze the volatile compounds. DB-WAX and DB-5 chromatographic columns (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm; J&W Scientific, Folsom, CA, USA) were employed to separate these compounds [14].
Mass spectra in electron ionization mode were recorded at 70 eV and a mass/charge range of 50–350 amu at a 2.0 scan s−1 scan rate. Compounds were identified according to NIST 14.0 (The National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA) mass spectra libraries.
GC–O analysis was carried out on polar and non-polar columns by three well-trained panelists. Before analysis, the panelists were trained by smelling the odors of the model solutions of reference compounds at different concentrations. The aroma descriptor, intensity value, and retention time were recorded by the panelists during analysis [15]. If two or more panelists detected the aroma, an aroma-active location was identified.

2.6. Identification of Key Flavor Compounds

Two types of dilution analysis were used to identify key flavor compounds, including headspace dilution analysis (HDA) for SPME and aroma extraction dilution analysis (AEDA) for SAFE, as described by Zhang et al. [15]. For SPME (Supelco, Inc., Bellefonte, PA, USA), the volatile compounds were diluted stepwise by increasing the split ratio of 1:3. For SAFE (Glasbläserei Wolfgang Bahr, Manching, Germany), the concentrated fraction was diluted stepwise at the ratio of 1:3 with a diethyl ether-pentane mixture (2:1, v/v). The process was ceased when aromas could not be smelled. FD factor could be expressed as the ratio of the initial and final concentration of the flavor compound of juice. The compounds with FD higher than 1 were identified as key flavor compounds.

2.7. Qualitative Analysis of Flavor Compounds

The compound identification was carried out by NIST 14.0 mass spectrum database, the retention index (RI), and odor properties. The key flavor compounds were confirmed further compared with the standard compounds. RI was calculated using Equation (1) and compared with the references.
R I = 100 n + 100 t a − t n t n + 1 − t n
where t_a is the retention time of the sample “a”, t_n is the retention time of Cn, “n” represents the number of carbon atoms, and the retention time of sample “a” is between Cn and Cn+1 [16].

2.8. Quantitative Analysis of Flavor Compounds

GC conditions were the same as mentioned above, and a selected ion monitor (SIM) was selected as the mass acquisition mode. Both extract methods were used to quantify different ions. Reference standards with a series of concentrations were prepared. The mixed reference standards (1 μL) were added to the sample gathered with internal standard (1 μL, 0.816 μg/μL). The extraction procedures were the same as the methods of SPME and SAFE as described above. Standard curves were established based on the peak area and concentration of each compound. The Y-axis represented the peak area ratio of analyte to the internal standard, and the X-axis represented the concentration of reference standards of the analyte [17]. In order to eliminate the loss during the extract process, the recovery of the target compound was calculated using Equation (2).
R e c o v e r y % = ( C 1 − C 0 ) C 2 × 100 %
where C0 is the concentration of the compound before reference standard being added, C1 is the detected concentration after reference standard being added, and C2 is the reference standard concentration being added [16].

2.9. Odor Activity Value (OAV)

The equation to calculate OAV was as below:
O A V = C i O T i
where Ci is a compound concentration and OTi is the odor threshold of this compound. Compounds with OAV ≥1 were considered to contribute to the juice flavor [18].

2.10. Sensory Evaluation

Twelve panelists (6 males and 6 females, aged 20–35 years) were recruited from the Molecule Sensory Laboratory of Beijing Technology and Business University. Members of the sensory panel were trained for 2 months to familiarize the watermelon aroma characteristics. Sensory evaluation was strictly in accordance with Table 1. The total score was based on the 5-point scale, with 0 for no odor and 5 for the strongest odor. Each sample was evaluated three times by every panelist to make sure that the score differences were no more than 20%.

2.11. Aroma Recombination of TW

To verify the obtained result of off-flavor compounds, the aroma recombination system was prepared and compared with the actual watermelon juice flavor [19]. A model aroma mixture system was prepared in ultrapure water containing 5% fructose and citric acid, 0.3% pectin, and reference standards of the five aroma-active compounds and seven key off-flavor compounds at the concentration were quantified. The total soluble solid of the model mixture was adjusted to 8.00 ± 0.06 Brix, and pH 5.70 ± 0.10. The flavor similarity between the aroma recombination system and TW was compared based on the score rules of sensory evaluation listed in Table 1. Every sensory evaluation was conducted in triplicate.

2.12. Omission Experiments

Mixture models were produced by omitting one kind of key off-flavor compounds from the aroma recombination system. The same sensory panels evaluated the flavor similarity between the omission and recombination models in a triangle test. Every sensory evaluation was conducted in triplicate [19].

2.13. Statistical Analysis

Analysis of variance was carried out to determine the significance at a 95% confidence interval using SAS 9.3 software (Statistical Analysis System, Cary, NC, USA). Partial least-squares regression (PLSR) was implemented using SIMCA-P 11.5 software (Umetrics, Umeå, Sweden). All experiments were performed in triplicate.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Identification of Aroma-Active Compounds in FW and TW

In order to extract and analyze the flavor compounds of watermelon juice comprehensively, the extract methods of SPME (non-solvent extract) and SAFE (solvent extract), the chromatographic columns of DB-Wax (strong polar) and DB-5 (weak polar) (Agilent Technologies Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA) were applied in this study. Thus, the aroma-active compounds and key off-flavor compounds could be identified accurately and thoroughly. Fifty-seven compounds in FW and TW were extracted and identified (Table 2). Five groups of flavor compounds were identified in FW and TW, containing 26 aldehydes, 11 alcohols, 7 ketones, 5 sulfur compounds, and 8 others. Table 2 shows the presence of 17 compounds in total with FD >1 (7, 9–11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 27, 29, 33–36, 39, 47, 48) by GC–O–AEDA of the isolates in FW and TW. Among the 17 detected compounds, 13 odorants (7, 9–11, 13, 14, 17, 27, 29, 34, 36, 39, 47) were present in both kinds of juices. Four compounds, including (E)-2-decenal, (E)-2-octenol, (E,Z)-3,6-nonadienol, and dipropyl trisulfide were only detected in TW, which contributed to the off-flavor of TW.

3.1.1. Aldehydes

Among the 17 compounds identified in FW and TW, aldehydes were the most prevalent and potent aroma compounds in watermelon or its juice [7,8]. Of the 26 aldehydes, eight (7, 9–11, 13, 14, 16, 17) were the aroma-active compounds with FD >1. These aldehydes were responsible for imparting the soapy, fatty, or green smells. C6 and C9 unsaturated aldehydes are derived from polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), such as linoleic acid and linolenic acid [7]. 9, 13-Hydroperoxides are primary PUFA oxidation products in plants. Herein, its decomposition by enzymes generated multiple fruity like aldehyde derivatives with shorter chains [7], such as (E)-2-nonenal, (E,Z)-2,6-nonadienal, (E)-2-decenal, and (E,E)-2,4-nonadienal. C9 unsaturated aldehydes are considered to contribute to melon aroma greatly due to their low odor thresholds [14]. Among melons, (E,E)-2,4-heptadienal and (E)-2-heptenal are reported in seedless watermelon and those from Ibaraki, Japan [20]. They are also present in the avocado, fish oil, and olive oil. These aldehydes derive from the oxidation of polyunsaturated fatty acids [21,22]. In these studies, (E)-2-heptenal imparts fatty, fruity, or green smell, and (E,E)-2,4-heptadienal contributes a green, fatty, or nutty note, which are in accordance with this study. (E)-2-Octenal was detected in grafted and mini-watermelon, and three cultivars of muskmelons [8,20,23,24]. Decanal was detected in Jiashi muskmelon, mini-watermelon, and heated soybean oil [8,20,25,26]. It easily contributes to subsequent reactions during the thermal treatment as a keto–enol tautomerism product of the combination product between 1-decenyl radical decomposed from O-8-hydroperoxide and hydroxyl radical [26]. Specifically, (E)-2-decenal only exists in TW (FD = 27) with a mechanical and soapy smell. This contributed to the strong off-flavor of TW.

3.1.2. Alcohols

Eleven alcohols, six of which (27, 29, 33-36) were identified with FD >1 in both FW and TW. Hexanol, octanol, (E)-2-octenol, nonanol, (E,Z)-3,6-nonadienol, and (E,Z)-2,6-nonadienol could be formed due to reduction of the corresponding aldehydes. All identified compounds were previously reported for watermelon aroma, and presented fatty, fruity, floral, green, or cucumber-like smell [8,23]. Among them, (E)-2-octenol and (E,Z)-3,6-nonadienol were only detected in TW (FD = 3 and 3) with plastic, soapy, or fishy smell slightly contributing to the off-flavor.

3.1.3. Ketones

Among the seven identified ketones, geranyl acetone was found with FD >1 in both FW and TW. They were reported in the melon fruits with different rootstocks, seedless watermelon, and watermelon juice treated by high-intensity pulsed electric fields [6,14,23]. Geranyl acetone probably derived from phytoene or phytofluene. In essence, color is highly associated with aroma compounds in watermelon, and this relationship is probably a function of the degradation of carotenoids into volatiles [27]. Moreover, its FD increased from three to nine, indicating that TW had a stronger floral or green smell than FW.

3.1.4. Sulfides

Five sulfides, diisopropyl disulfide, and dipropyl trisulfide were identified with FD >1 both in FW and TW. Few reports have described sulfides in watermelon or its juice, although these compounds exist in Jiashi muskmelon [25]. These two compounds were detected in our previous study, and extracted only by SAFE [28]. A strong possibility exists that the sulfur compounds may originate from methionine present in the watermelon seeds [29]. Sulfides presented the flavor characteristic of onion or garlic. They impacted the flavor quality of watermelon juice. Moreover, dipropyl trisulfide was only detected in TW (FD = 3) with vegetables or garlic smell, suggesting that it slightly contributes to the off-flavor.
As shown in Table 2, based on FDs, the aroma-active compounds in FW and TW are as follows: (E,Z)-2,6-nonadienal (FD >81/>81), (E)-2-octenal (FD = 27/>81), (E,Z)-2,6-nonadienol (FD = 27/81), (E)-2-nonenal (FD = 27/27), nonanol (FD = 27/27). The results were in accordance with previous reports [28].

3.2. Identification of Key Off-Flavor Compounds in TW

Thermal treatment promoted the formation and release of flavor compounds with higher FDs in TW. After thermal treatment, watermelon juice produced a strong unpleasant flavor. As shown in Table 2, FDs of some compounds increased significantly after thermal treatment, including (E)-2-heptenal (fatty, fruity, green), (E)-2-octenal (fatty, nut), (E,E)-2,4-heptadienal (nut, fatty), (E)-2-nonenal (cucumber, green), (E,Z)-2,6-nonadienal (cucumber, green), (E)-2-decenal (mechanical, soapy), octanol (metal, burnt), (E)-2-octenol (plastic, soapy), (E,Z)-3,6-nonadienol (fishy), (E,Z)-2,6-nonadienol (cucumber), geranyl acetone (floral, green), (Z)-β-ionone (oat, floral), and diisopropyl disulfide (garlic, sulfur) [15]. Through the combination of FD values and odor characteristics, the compounds with unpleasant odor characteristics, and the FDs in TW being equal to or higher than that in FW, were identified as the off-flavor compounds. Thus, seven compounds were preliminary considered to be key off-flavors in TW: (E)-2-heptenal (fatty, fruity, green; FD = 81), decanal (pungent, soapy; FD = 81), octanol (metal, burnt; FD = 81), diisopropyl disulfide (garlic, sulfur; FD = 81), hexanol (bitter, floral; FD = 81), (E)-2-decenal (mechanical, soapy; FD = 27), and (E)-2-octenol (plastic, soapy; FD = 3).
As shown in Figure 1A, seven odor attributes were generally summarized in FW and TW. A pleasant odor, such as “cucumber”, “grass”, and “green” had higher scores in FW. While the scores of unpleasant odor, such as “cooking flavor” and “fatty”, increased in TW significantly. This result was related to FDs increase in the following off-flavor compounds (Table 2): (E)-2-heptenal (fatty, fruity, green), (E)-2-decenal (mechanical, soapy), octanol (metal, burnt), (E)-2-octenol (plastic, soapy), and diisopropyl disulfide (garlic, sulfur). The off-flavor of TW was caused by the combination of multiple above compounds [30]. In thermally processed muskmelon juice, volatile sulfur compounds, and small molecular aliphatic aldehydes also contributed to the off-odors [31]. Methanethiol and dimethyl sulfide were the key off-flavor compounds identified in thermal mandarin juices [32]. Thermal degradation of sulfur-containing amino acids and unsaturated fatty acid, as well as Maillard reactions in juice, contributed to the generation of the thermal-induced off-notes [33,34].
As shown in Figure 2, 7 flavor attributes and 12 compounds (aroma-active compounds and key off-flavor compounds) in FW and TW were selected to conduct PLSR analysis, they were taken as variable X and Y, respectively. The PLSR model provided a two-factor model explaining 69% of the X-variance (flavor attributes) and 63% of the Y-variance (aroma-active compounds and key off-flavor compounds) in Figure 2.
The odor attributes of “fatty” and “cooking flavor” concentrated on the left side of the loading plot, which presented significant positive correlations with compounds: (E)-2-heptenal, diisopropyl disulfide, (E)-2-decenal, decanal, (E)-2-octenol, octanol, and hexanol (p < 0.05). In summary, these seven volatile compounds were preliminarily identified as the key off-flavor compounds in TW.

3.3. OAV of Aroma-Active and Off-Flavor Compounds

Three quantitative ions were selected in order to correctly match with known compounds from the quality library. The recovery (70–130%) was calculated to guarantee the accuracy of the quantitative results (Table 3). The standard curves possess good linearity with correlation coefficient: R2 ≥ 0.99. All data displayed improved repeatability with RSD ≤10%. The concentration of five aroma-active compounds and seven off-flavor compounds are shown in Table 3. Among them, diisopropyl disulfide had the highest concentration (2122.17 μg/μL), followed by (E)-2-heptenal (1090.23 μg/μL) and (E,Z)-2,6-nonadienol (825.18 μg/μL).
OAV was another index that contributed aroma compounds to the overall flavor [18]. As shown in Table 4, the highest OAV in TW was diisopropyl disulfide (OAV = 21,222), followed by (E)-2-nonenal (OAV = 3146) and (E,Z)-2,6-nonadienal (OAV = 656). Ten compounds with OAV ≥1 contributed to the overall flavor of watermelon juice, which was in accordance with FDs. However, hexanol and (E)-2-octenol had higher FDs (81 and >81) and lower OAV (OAV <1) due to lower concentration or higher threshold. In the real food matrix, different odor compounds interact due to the antagonistic and synergistic effect, not a simple superposition [35]. Individual differences were completely unavoidable, including perception and cognition of flavor compounds. For OAV, every compound had the same psychometric function and aroma intensity, which increased linearly with increasing concentration [36]. However, the results contradicted the real matrix. The relationship between compound concentration and its response was not linear but S-shaped [24]. Hence, the identification of the key off-flavor compounds needed further verification.

3.4. Aroma Recombination of TW

According to the quantitative results of TW, the aroma recombination was carried out to verify the contribution of the seven key off-flavor compounds to the overall flavor of TW. As shown in Figure 1B, the aroma recombination system performance displayed good similarity with TW, with no significant difference between the seven odor attributes (p < 0.05) being observed. This indicated that the identification and quantitation experiments were accurate, and that the aroma-active and key off-flavor compounds were precisely identified [14,43]. Therefore, (E)-2-heptenal, diisopropyl disulfide, (E)-2-decenal, decanal, (E)-2-octenol, octanol, and hexanol were confirmed as the key off-flavor compounds in TW.

3.5. Omission Experiments

In order to further verify and rank the contribution level among the seven key off-flavor compounds, omission experiments were divided into seven groups (Table 5). When octanol was omitted, 12 sensory panelists judged the flavor difference correctly from three samples, which showed the highest significant difference (p ≤ 0.001). This result revealed that octanol played a very important role in the overall flavor in TW. Among them, the absence of diisopropyl disulfide and (E)-2-decenal showed significant differences (p ≤ 0.05 and p ≤ 0.01), which agreed with the higher FDs and OAVs, respectively. Therefore, these two compounds also had a significant influence on the overall flavor of TW. The omission experiments: hexanol and (E)-2-octenol (OAV ≤1 but higher FDs) also showed significance differences (p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.05). However, no significant differences were observed when (E)-2-heptenal and decanal were omitted from the recombination in spite of their higher FDs and OAVs. Comprehensive consideration of significance difference of omission experiment, FD, and OAV, octanol (metal, burnt; FD = 81; OAV = 2), diisopropyl disulfide (garlic, sulfur; FD = 81; OAV = 21,222), and (E)-2-decenal (mechanical, soapy; FD = 27; OAV = 294) were identified as the most potent off-flavor compounds in TW.
The above three compounds were previously reported as off-flavor compounds. Octanol contributes to the off-flavor of whey protein concentrate during storage of 45 °C for 15 weeks, and it changes the organoleptic properties of packaged food [44,45]. In bovine bone marrow extract, it contributes to the off-flavor due to the Maillard reaction [46]. From this aspect, the Maillard reaction might also induce the off-flavor. (E)-2-decenal was employed as an aroma marker of oxidation degradation to quantitatively monitor and describe the quality of packaged olive oil [47]. (E)-2-Decenal also formed by oleic acid being degraded at 140 °C affects the flavor of frying [48,49]. It is derived from the thermal reaction of enzymatic hydrolysates of the protein with oxidized lard [50]. Diisopropyl disulfide showed a positive relationship with the sensory attributes “salt flavor” and “carrot aroma” in the commercial regular salt soup, and also a “sulfury, onion” note in the preserved egg yolk [15,51]. These results are in accordance with this study.

4. Conclusions

In conclusion, seven key off-flavor compounds in TW were preliminarily identified by concentration variation, odor attributes, and PLSR analysis. Five aroma-active compounds and seven key off-flavor compounds were quantified by the standard curve method. They were further confirmed by both OAV and FD. The aroma recombination was employed to verify the contribution of the seven key off-flavor compounds to the overall aroma profile. In addition, the omission experiment from the recombination system was carried out to confirm the results. Octanol, diisopropyl disulfide, and (E)-2-decenal were identified as the most potent off-flavor compounds in TW.

Author Contributions

X.Y. carried out the laboratory work and performed statistical analysis; F.Y. collected samples, drafted, and revised the manuscript; Y.L. conceived, designed, and coordinated the study; J.L. and H.-L.S. helped to edited and revised the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 31871821 and the APC was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 31871821.

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). STAT 2017. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/zh/#data/QC (accessed on 3 February 2019).
  2. Tarazona-díaz, M.; Viegas, J.; Moldao-martins, M.; Aguayo, E. Bioactive compounds from flesh and by-product of fresh-cut watermelon varieties. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011, 91, 805–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ellis, A.C.; Dudenbostel, T.; Crowe-White, K. Watermelon juice: A novel functional food to increase circulating lycopene in older adult women. Plant Food Hum. Nutr. 2019, 74, 200–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Giovannucci, E. A review of studies of tomatoes, lycopene, and prostate cancer. Exp. Biol. Med. 2002, 227, 852–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Liu, Y.; Hu, X.S.; Zhao, X.Y.; Song, H.L. Combined effect of high pressure carbon dioxide and mild heat treatment on overall quality parameters of watermelon juice. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. 2012, 13, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aguiló-Aguayo, I.; Montero-Calderón, M.; Soliva-Fortuny, R.; Martín-Belloso, O. Changes on flavor compounds throughout cold storage of watermelon juice processed by high-intensity pulsed electric fields or heat. J. Food Eng. 2010, 100, 43–49. [Google Scholar]
  7. Xisto, A.L.R.P.; Boas, E.V.d.B.V.; Nunes, E.E.; Federal, B.M.V.B.; Guerreiro, M.C. Volatile profile and physical, chemical, and biochemical changes in fresh cut watermelon during storage. Food Sci. Technol. Campinas 2012, 32, 173–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Fredes, A.; Sales, C.; Barreda, M.; Valcárcel, M.; Roselló, S.; Beltrán, J. Quantification of prominent volatile compounds responsible for muskmelon and watermelon aroma by purge and trap extraction followed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry determination. Food Chem. 2016, 190, 689–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Luo, D.S.; Pang, X.L.; Xu, X.X.; Bi, S.; Zhang, W.T.; Wu, J.H. Identification of cooked off-flavor components and analysis of their formation mechanisms in melon juice during thermal processing. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 5612–5620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sun, X.X.; Baldwin, E.A.; Plotto, A.; Manthey, J.A.; Duan, Y.P.; Bai, J.H. Effects of thermal processing and pulp filtration on physical, chemical and sensory properties of winter melon juice. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 97, 543–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Averbeck, M.; Schieberle, P. Influence of different storage conditions on changes in the key aroma compounds of orange juice reconstituted from concentrate. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2011, 232, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Al-Attabi, Z.; D’Arcy, B.R.; Deeth, H.C. Volatile sulfur compounds in pasteurised and UHT milk during storage. Dairy Sci. Technol. 2014, 94, 241–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Ji, H.F.; Ni, H.; Chen, F.; Cai, H.N.; Yang, Y.F.; Xiao, A.F. Effects of pasteurization on the volatiles and aroma of Guanxi Pummelo juice. J. Chin. Inst. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 15, 225–232. [Google Scholar]
  14. Liu, Y.; He, C.C.; Song, H.L. Comparison of fresh watermelon juice aroma characteristics of five varieties based on gas chromatography-olfactometry-mass spectrometry. Food Res. Int. 2018, 107, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.P.; Yang, W.X.; Huang, J.; Liu, Y.Q.; Huang, M.Q.; Sun, B.G.; Li, C.L. Characterization of potent aroma compounds in preserved egg yolk by gas chromatography−olfactometry, quantitative measurements, and odor activity value. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 6132–6141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Liang, J.J.; Xie, J.C.; Hou, L.; Zhao, M.Y.; Zhao, J.; Cheng, J.; Wang, S.; Sun, B.G. Aroma constituents in Shanxi aged vinegar before and after aging. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 7597–7605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sgorbini, B.; Cagliero, C.; Liberto, E.; Rubiolo, P.; Bicchi, C.; Cordero, C. Strategies for accurate quantitation of volatiles from foods and plant-origin materials: A challenging task. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 1619–1630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhou, Q.; Jia, X.; Yao, Y.Z.; Wang, B.; Wei, C.Q.; Zhang, M. Characterization of the aroma-active compounds in commercial fragrant rapeseed oils via monolithic material sorptive extraction. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 11454–11463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zheng, Y.; Sun, B.G.; Zhao, M.M.; Zheng, F.P.; Huang, M.Q.; Sun, J.Y.; Sun, X.T.; Li, H.H. Characterization of the key odorants in Chinese zhima aroma-type Baijiu by gas chromatography-olfactometry, quantitative measurements, aroma recombination, and omission studies. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 5367–5374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dima, G.; Tripodi, G.; Condurso, C.; Verzera, A. Volatile constituents of mini-watermelon fruits. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2014, 26, 323–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Vandamme, J.; Nikiforov, A.; Dujardin, K.; Leys, C.; Cooman, L.D.; Durme, J.V. Critical evaluation of non-thermal plasma as an innovative accelerated lipid oxidation technique in fish oil. Food Res. Int. 2015, 72, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Galvao, M.S.; Nunes, M.L.; Cdnstant, P.B.L.; Narain, N. Identification of volatile compounds in cultivars barker, collinson, fortuna and geada of avocado (Persea americana, Mill.) fruit. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 36, 439–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Condurso, C.; Verzera, A.; Dima, G.; Tripodi, G.; Crinò, P.; Paratore, A.; Romano, D. Effects of different rootstocks on aroma volatile compounds and carotenoid content of melon fruits. Sci. Hortic. 2012, 148, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pang, X.L.; Hu, X.S.; Liao, X.J.; Sun, Z.J.; Zhang, M.W.; Wu, J.H. Study on Two Evaluation methods of odor-active compounds in Hami melon: Frequency detection-gas chromatography-olfactometry method and odor activity value analysis. J. Chin. Inst. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 12, 174–182. [Google Scholar]
  25. Pang, X.L.; Guo, X.F.; Qin, Z.H.; Yao, Y.B.; Hu, X.S.; Wu, J.H. Identification of Aroma-Active Compounds in Jiashi Muskmelon Juice by GC-O-MS and OAV Calculation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 4179–4185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhang, Q.; Qin, W.; Lin, D.R.; Shen, Q.; Saleh, A.S.M. The changes in the volatile aldehydes formed during the deep-fat frying process. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 7683–7696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Zepka, L.Q.; Garruti, D.S.; Sampaio, K.L.; Mercadante, A.Z.; Da Silva, M.A.A.P. Aroma compounds derived from the thermal degradation of carotenoids in a cashew apple juice model. Food Res. Int. 2014, 56, 108–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Liu, Y.; He, C.C.; Song, H.L. Comparison of SPME versus SAFE processes for the analysis of flavor compounds in watermelon juice. Food Anal. Method 2018, 11, 1677–1689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dash, P.; Ghosh, G. Fractionation, amino acid profiles, antimicrobial and free radical scavenging activities of Citrullus lanatus seed protein. Nat. Prod. Res. 2017, 31, 2945–2947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhang, Y.; Song, H.L.; Li, P.; Yao, J.; Xiong, J. Determination of potential off-flavour in yeast extract. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 82, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pang, X.L.; Zhang, Y.Z.; Qiu, J.; Cao, J.M.; Sun, Y.Q.; Li, H.H.; Kong, F.Y. Coupled multidimensional GC and odor activity value calculation to identify off-odors in thermally processed muskmelon juice. Food Chem. 2019, 301, 125307–125317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cheng, Y.J.; Rouseff, R.; Li, G.J.; Wu, H.J. Methanethiol, an off-flavor produced from the thermal treatment of mandarin juices: A study of citrus sulfur volatiles. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 1030–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gassenmeier, K.; Schieberle, P. Formation of the intense flavor compound trans-4,5-epoxy-(E)-2-decenal in thermally treated fats. J. Oil Fat Ind. 1994, 71, 1315–1319. [Google Scholar]
  34. Josephson, D.B.; Lindsay, R.C.; Stuiber, D.A. Biogenesis of lipid-derived volatile aroma compounds in the emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides). J. Agric. Food Chem. 1985, 32, 1347–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ntalli, N.G.; Ferrari, F.; Giannakou, I.; Menkissoglu-Spiroudi, U. Synergistic and antagonistic interactions of terpenes against Meloidogyne incognita and the nematicidal activity of essential oils from seven plants indigenous to Greece. Pest Manag. Sci. 2011, 67, 341–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Baldovini, N.; Filippi, J.J. Identification of odor active constituents in natural raw materials. In Springer Handbook of Odor; Büttner, A., Ed.; Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 39–62. [Google Scholar]
  37. Fors, S. Sensory properties of volatile Maillard reaction products and related compounds. In ACS Symposium Series; Waller, G.R., Feather, M.S., Eds.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 1983; Volume 215, pp. 303–338. [Google Scholar]
  38. Ullrich, F.; Grosch, W. Identification of the most intense odor compounds formed during autoxidation of methyl linolenate at room temperature. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 1988, 65, 1313–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Butter, R.G.; Teranishi, R.; Ling, L.C.; Turnbaugh, J.G. Quantitative and sensory studies on tomato paste volatiles. J. Agr. Food Chem. 1990, 38, 336–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Karahadian, C.; Johnson, K.A. Analysis of headspace volatiles and sensory characteristics of fresh corn tortillas made from fresh masa dough and spray-dried masa flour. J. Agr. Food Chem. 1993, 41, 791–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Maarse, H. Volatile Compounds in Foods and Beverages; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  42. Josephson, D.B.; Lindsay, R.C.; Stuiber, D.A. Volatile carotenoid-related oxidation compounds contributing to cooked salmon flavor. LWT-Food Sci. Tech. 1991, 24, 425–432. [Google Scholar]
  43. Steinhaus, M.; Sinuco, D.; Polster, J.; Osorio, C.; Schieberle, P. Characterization of the key aroma compounds in pink guava (Psidium guajava L.) by means of aroma re-engineering experiments and omission tests. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 2882–2888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Javidipour, I.; Qian, M.C. Volatile component change in whey protein concentrate during storage investigated by headspace solid-phase microextraction gas chromatography. Dairy Sci. Technol. 2008, 88, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Vera, P.; Canellas, E.; Nerín, C. Compounds responsible for off-odors in several samples composed by poly propylene, polyethylene, paper and cardboard used as food packaging materials. Food Chem. 2020, 309, 125792–125800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Xu, X.R.; Zheng, Y.Y.; Song, H.L.; Gong, L.; Pan, W.Q. The effects of enzymatic hydrolysis degree of bovine bone marrow extract on flavor generation via the Maillard reaction. J. Food Meas. Charact. 2019, 13, 521–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Antonis, K.; Pilar, H.M.; Frank, C.; Susan, S. Oxidation derived flavor compounds as quality indicators for package olive oil. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2004, 81, 251–257. [Google Scholar]
  48. Chen, H.J.; Wang, Y.; Cao, P.R.; Liu, Y.F. Thermal oxidation rate of oleic acid increased dramatically at 140 °C studied using electron spin resonance and GC-MS/MS. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2019, 96, 937–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Liu, Y.; Li, J.W.; Cheng, Y.J.; Liu, Y.F. Effect of frying oils fatty acid profile on quality, free radical and volatiles over deep-frying process: A comparative study using chemometrics. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 101, 331–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhao, M.Y.; Zhao, J.; Xie, J.C.; Xiao, Q.F.; Fan, M.D.; Wang, T.Z.; Du, W.B.; Wang, M.; Guo, X.Y. Characterization of aroma compounds in two meat flavorings prepared from thermal reaction of enzymatic hydrolysates of black pig and common white pig meat proteinss with oxidized lard. Food Sci. 2017, 38, 40–47. [Google Scholar]
  51. Mitchell, M.; Brunton, N.P.; Wilkinson, M.G. Impact of salt reduction on the instrumental and sensory flavor profile of vegetable soup. Food Res. Int. 2011, 44, 1036–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Foods 09 00227 g001a 550Foods 09 00227 g001b 550
Figure 1. Odor attributes of FW and TW (A) and aroma profile of TW and recombination system (B) by sensory evaluation.
Figure 1. Odor attributes of FW and TW (A) and aroma profile of TW and recombination system (B) by sensory evaluation.
Foods 09 00227 g001aFoods 09 00227 g001b
Foods 09 00227 g002 550
Figure 2. Correlationship analysis of odor attributes and aroma-active compounds in FW and TW by partial least-squares regression (PLSR).
Figure 2. Correlationship analysis of odor attributes and aroma-active compounds in FW and TW by partial least-squares regression (PLSR).
Foods 09 00227 g002
Table
Table 1. Flavor attributes selected for sensory evaluation.
Table 1. Flavor attributes selected for sensory evaluation.
Flavor AttributesCharacteristic
cucumberfresh cucumber
grasschopped freshly grass
fruitymixed aroma associated with fresh fruit
florallight aroma associated with fresh flowers
fattyoily aroma like plant oils or animal fats
cookingcooking smell with high temperature
greenpleasant aroma of fresh plant
Table
Table 2. Flavor compounds identified by gas chromatography–olfactometry–mass spectrometry (GC–O–MS) in fresh watermelon (FW) and thermally treated watermelon juice (TW) extracted by solid-phase microextraction (SPME) and solvent-assisted flavor evaporation (SAFE).
Table 2. Flavor compounds identified by gas chromatography–olfactometry–mass spectrometry (GC–O–MS) in fresh watermelon (FW) and thermally treated watermelon juice (TW) extracted by solid-phase microextraction (SPME) and solvent-assisted flavor evaporation (SAFE).
CategoriesCompounds aCASOdor PropertyRI bIdentification Methods cFD dExtraction Methods
DB-WAXDB-5FWTW
Aldehydes (26)
12-methylbutanal96-17-3cocoa, almond964692MS,RI,S--SPME, SAFE
2hexanal66-25-1grass1068794MS,RI,S--SPME, SAFE
3(E)-2-pentenal #1576-87-0strawberry, fruity1117746MS,RI--SPME
4heptanal111-71-7fatty, putrid1174897MS,RI,S--SPME
5(E)-2-hexenal #6728-26-3green, fruity1207847MS,RI,S--SPME
6octanal124-13-0pungent, soapy1280998MS,RI,S--SPME, SAFE
7(E)-2-heptenal *18829-55-5fatty, fruity, green1314952MS,RI,O,S2781SPME
8nonanal124-19-6green, fatty13831100MS,RI,S--SPME, SAFE
9(E)-2-octenal *2548-87-0fatty, nut14201054MS,RI,O,S27>81SPME, SAFE
10(E,E)-2,4-heptadienal *4313-03-5nut, fatty1482-MS,RI,O,S33SPME
11decanal112-31-2pungent, soapy14901202MS,RI,O,S8181SPME
12benzaldehyde100-52-7almond, caramel1509957MS,RI,S--SPME, SAFE
13(E)-2-nonenal *18829-56-6cucumber, green1527-MS,RI,O,S2727SPME, SAFE
14(E,Z)-2,6-nonadienal *557-48-2cucumber, green1576-MS,RI,O,S>81>81SPME
15β-cyclocitral432-25-7mint16141222MS,RI--SPME
16(E)-2-decenal *3913-81-3mechanical, soapy16351259MS,RI,O,S-27SPME
17(E,E)-2,4-nonadienal5910-87-2fatty, green16911192MS,RI,O,S99SPME
18citral5392-40-5lemon17261268MS,RI--SPME
192,6-dimethyl-5-heptenal106-72-9fruity-1050MS,RI--SPME
20(Z)-4-heptenal6728-31-0cream-892MS,RI--SPME
212-undecenal2463-77-6sweet-1346MS,RI--SPME
22undecanal112-44-7fatty, sweet-1303MS,RI--SPME, SAFE
23(E,E)-2,4-nonadienal25152-84-5fried18021314MS,RI,S--SPME
24acetal105-57-7fruity900722MS,RI--SAFE
26dodecanal112-54-9floral-1405MS,RI--SAFE
Alcohols (11)
27hexanol111-27-3bitter, floral1346865MS,RI,O,S8181SPME, SAFE
28(Z)-3-hexenol928-96-1grass1376852MS,RI--SPME, SAFE
29Octanol *111-87-5metal, burnt15481068MS,RI,O,S8181SPME
30heptanol111-70-6green-967MS,RI,S--SPME
311-octene-3-ol3391-86-4mushroom1394977MS,RI,S--SPME
32benzyl alcohol100-51-6floral18651037MS,RI--SPME, SAFE
33(E)-2-octenol *18409-17-1plastic, soapy16011167MS,RI,O,S-3SPME
34nonanol143-08-8fatty, green16501170MS,RI,O,S2727SPME, SAFE
35(E,Z)-3,6-nonadienol *56805-23-3fishy1738-MS,RI,O,S-3SPME, SAFE
36(E,Z)-2,6-nonadienol *28069-72-9cucumber1754-MS,RI,O,S2781SPME, SAFE
372-methylbutanol137-32-6wine-745MS,RI--SAFE
Ketones (7)
386-methyl-5-hepten-2-one110-93-0rubbery1327983MS,RI--SPME, SAFE
39geranyl acetone *3796-70-1floral, green18441450MS,RI,O,S39SPME, SAFE
40(Z)-β-ionone *79-77-6oat, floral1931-MS,RI,O,SSPME
413-octanone106-68-3medicine, fatty1248-MS,RI--SPME
422-butanone78-93-3floral894-MS,RI--SAFE
432-pentanone107-87-9fruity-684MS,RI,S--SAFE
442-hexanone591-78-6ether-729MS,RI--SAFE
Sulfides (5)
45diethyl disulfide110-81-6pungent, garlic1206-MS,RI--SAFE
46ethyl propyl disulfide30453-31-7garlic1231970MS,RI--SAFE
47diisopropyl disulfide *4253–89-8garlic, sulfur12491016MS,RI,O,S8181SAFE
48dipropyl trisulfide6028-61-1vegetable, garlic15271231MS,RI,O,S-3SAFE
49methyl propyl disulfide2179-60-4sulfur, garlic1112-MS,RI--SAFE
Others (8)
502-n-pentylfuran3777-69-3fatty1220988MS,RI,S--SPME
51ethyl acetate141-78-6fruity884-MS,RI--SAFE
52o-xylene95-47-6floral1126865MS,RI--SPME, SAFE
53meta-xylene108-38-3plastic1119856MS,RI--SPME, SAFE
54limonene5989-27-5 green, fruity1194-MS,RI--SAFE
55naphthalene91-20-3wax17331185MS,RI--SAFE
56styrene100-42-5gasoline-886MS,RI--SAFE
573-methylbutyric acid503-74-2sweat-909MS,RI,S--SAFE
a Compounds marked with “*” mean there were significant differences in the concentration between FW and TW; “#” means the compounds were only detected in TW; b compounds were separated respectively by DB-WAX and DB-5 columns; the actual RI could not exceed ±50 of the library standard value; compounds marked with “-” means they were not detected; c MS, compounds were identified by MS spectra; O, compounds were identified by sniffing; RI, compounds were identified by comparison to reference standards; d compounds marked with “-”, which means the compound could not be identified by sniffing.
Table
Table 3. Standard curve and concentrations of aroma-active and key off-flavor compounds in TW.
Table 3. Standard curve and concentrations of aroma-active and key off-flavor compounds in TW.
No.Key Flavor Compounds aFDQuantitative Ion (m/z)Standard CurveR2 bConcentration (μg/L) cRecovery (%)RSD (%) d
1(E)-2-octenal *>81108.2, 83.1, 70.1y = 0.6813x + 0.11750.9995654.471264.94
2(E,Z)-2,6-nonadienal *>81109.1, 70.1, 67.1y = 0.8418x + 0.02740.9934459.541124.86
3(E)-2-heptenal #81112.0, 83.1, 70.1y = 0.2955x + 0.01830.99591090.231116.08
4Decanal #81209.0, 193.0, 70.1y = 0.2869x - 0.00880.992193.37990.23
5Octanol #8196.9, 84.1, 69.0y = 0.5663x + 0.00910.9992259.1826.04
6(E,Z)-2,6-nonadienol *81122.2, 81.0, 69.1y = 0.4322x - 0.00650.9928825.18877.83
7diisopropyl disulfide #81150.1, 108.0, 66.0y = 2.2337x + 0.68870.99742122.17720.99
8Hexanol #81134.1, 119.0, 56.2y = 0.8208x + 0.00720.998518.68988.97
9(E)-2-nonenal *27122.0, 83.1, 70.1y = 0.8483x + 0.11710.9919597.691145.79
10(E)-2-decenal #27136.0, 83.1, 70.1y = 0.6988x + 0.13830.9929293.721217.34
11Nonanol *27182.0, 70.1, 50.1y = 1.2630x + 0.01300.998317.77778.71
12(E)-2-octenol #3146.8, 81.1, 57.2y = 0.2583x + 0.02310.993916.731090
a “*” means they were the aroma-active compounds; “#” means they were the key off-flavor compounds; b correlation coefficient of standard curve; c average concentration of triplicate experiments; d relative standard deviation.
Table
Table 4. Odor activity values (OAV) of aroma-active and key off-flavor compounds.
Table 4. Odor activity values (OAV) of aroma-active and key off-flavor compounds.
No.Key Flavor CompoundsThreshold (μg/L) aOAV
7diisopropyl disulfide0.1 [37]21,222
9(E)-2-nonenal0.19 [38]3146
2(E,Z)-2,6-nonadienal0.7 [38]656
6(E,Z)-2,6-nonadienol1.3 [38]635
10(E)-2-decenal1 [39]294
1(E)-2-octenal3 [39]218
4decanal0.9 [40]104
3(E)-2-heptenal13 [41]84
11nonanol2 [40]9
5octanol110 [39]2
8hexanol500 [42]<1
12(E)-2-octenol40 [42]<1
Table
Table 5. Omission experiments from complete recombinate.
Table 5. Omission experiments from complete recombinate.
No.Compounds Omitted from the Complete Recombinate anbSignificance c
1(E)-2-heptenal4
2decanal5
3octanol10***
4diisopropyl disulfide8*
5hexanol9**
6(E)-2-decenal8**
7(E)-2-octenol8*
a Reference standards for preliminary determination of seven key off-flavor compounds; b Number of correct judgments from 12 sensory panelists who evaluated the flavor difference by the triangle test; c “*”, significant (p ≤ 0.05); “**”, highly significant (p ≤ 0.01); “***”, very highly significant (p ≤ 0.001).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yang, X.; Yang, F.; Liu, Y.; Li, J.; Song, H.-L. Identification of Key Off-Flavor Compounds in Thermally Treated Watermelon Juice via Gas Chromatography–Olfactometry–Mass Spectrometry, Aroma Recombination, and Omission Experiments. Foods 2020, 9, 227. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9020227

AMA Style

Yang X, Yang F, Liu Y, Li J, Song H-L. Identification of Key Off-Flavor Compounds in Thermally Treated Watermelon Juice via Gas Chromatography–Olfactometry–Mass Spectrometry, Aroma Recombination, and Omission Experiments. Foods. 2020; 9(2):227. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9020227

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yang, Xiao, Fan Yang, Ye Liu, Jian Li, and Huan-Lu Song. 2020. "Identification of Key Off-Flavor Compounds in Thermally Treated Watermelon Juice via Gas Chromatography–Olfactometry–Mass Spectrometry, Aroma Recombination, and Omission Experiments" Foods 9, no. 2: 227. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9020227

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop