| Literature DB >> 26937226 |
Iain R White1, Robert S Blake1, Andrew J Taylor2, Paul S Monks1.
Abstract
Real-time profiling of mango ripening based on proton transfer reaction-time of flight-mass spectrometry (PTR-ToF-MS) of small molecular weight volatile organic compounds (VOCs), is demonstrated using headspace measurements of 'Tommy Atkins' mangoes. VOC metabolites produced during the ripening process were sampled directly, which enabled simultaneous and rapid detection of a wide range of compounds. Headspace measurements of 'Keitt' mangoes were also conducted for comparison. A principle component analysis of the results indicated that several mass channels were not only key to the ripening process but could also be used to distinguish between mango cultivars. The identities of 22 of these channels, tentatively speciated using contemporaneous GC-MS measurements of sorbent tubes, are rationalized through examination of the biochemical pathways that produce volatile flavour components. Results are discussed with relevance to the potential of headspace analysers and electronic noses in future fruit ripening and quality studies.Entities:
Keywords: Mangifera indica; Mango; PTR–ToF–MS; Ripening; Tommy Atkins; VOCs
Year: 2016 PMID: 26937226 PMCID: PMC4759207 DOI: 10.1007/s11306-016-0973-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Metabolomics ISSN: 1573-3882 Impact factor: 4.290
Species identity for compounds analysed in ‘Tommy Atkins’ mango headspace samples based upon forward and reverse match hits and temperature programmed retention indices (TPRI), verified with (i) standard samples run on CIR-MS and (ii) standard samples run on GCMS
| PTR signal | (i) | Compound | Forward match | Reverse match | TPRI | Ref. RI | (ii) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15, 33 | • | Methanol | – | – | – | – | |
| 45 | • | Acetaldehyde | – | – | – | – | |
| 29, 47 | • | Ethanol | – | – | – | – | |
| 59 | • | Acetone | – | – | – | – | |
| 43, 61 | • | Propanol | 819 | 850 | 569 | 568 (Pino et al. | |
| 73 | Methyl ethyl ketone | 802 | 802 | 583 | 583 (Miyazaki et al. | ||
| 43, 61, 89 | Ethyl acetate | 958 | 958 | 600 | 611 | ||
| 57, 75 | • | Butanol | 823 | 826 | 654 | 668 (Pino et al. | |
| 43, 103 | Ethyl propanoate | 945 | 950 | 708 | 714 (Pino et al. | ||
| 43, 103 | • | Methyl butanoate | 928 | 929 | 715 | 724 (Pino et al. | |
| 71, 89 | • | Pentanol | 802 | 802 | 757 | 767 (Pino et al. | |
| 43, 57, 71, 89, 117 | Ethyl isobutanoate | 961 | 962 | 746 | 755 | ||
| (fragmentation not measured) 115 | Methyl crotonate | 926 | 926 | 751 | 756 (Pino et al. | ||
| 43, 57, 71, 89, 117 | • | Ethyl butanoate | 930 | 930 | 797 | 799 | • |
| (fragmentation not measured) 101 | Ethyl crotonate | 908 | 909 | 834 | 835 (Pino et al. | • | |
| 43, 57, 71, 89, 117 | 2-Methyl ethyl butanoate | 935 | 950 | 840 | 842 (Pino et al. | • | |
| (fragmentation not measured) 115 | Methyl tiglate | 802 | 854 | 858 | 860 (Costa et al. | ||
| 103, 131 | Propyl butanoate | 949 | 956 | 897 | 896 | • | |
| 103, 131 | Ethyl pentanoate | 893 | 893 | 901 | 901 | ||
| 43, 57,71, 99, 131 | • | Methyl hexanoate | 931 | 935 | 922 | 924 | |
| 81, 95, 137 | • | α-Pinene | 954 | 954 | 930 | 936 | • |
| (fragmentation not measured) 133 | Butyl-3-hydroxy ethyl ester | 816 | 816 | 932 | 937 (Fan et al. | ||
| (fragmentation not measured) 129 | Ethyl tiglate | 935 | 936 | 934 | 938 (Costa et al. | ||
| 43, 71, 99, 117, 145 | Isobutyl butanoate | 878 | 878 | 950 | 955 (Robinson et al. | ||
| 81, 95, 137 | β-Pinene | 852 | 862 | 979 | 978 | ||
| 81, 95, 137 | β-Myrcene | 909 | 909 | 990 | 989 | • | |
| 43, 71, 99, 117, 145 | • | Butyl butanoate | 925 | 930 | 998 | 994 (Pino et al. | • |
| 43, 71, 99, 117, 145 | • | Ethyl hexanoate | 954 | 954 | 1001 | 1000 | |
| 81, 95, 137 | • | 3-Carene | 929 | 944 | 1008 | 1011 | • |
| (fragmentation not measured) 135 | m-Cymene | 837 | 908 | 1020 | 1022 | ||
| (fragmentation not measured) 135 | p-Cymene | 913 | 913 | 1022 | 1024 | ||
| 81, 95, 137 | • | d-Limonene | 907 | 909 | 1025 | 1030 | • |
| 81, 95, 137 | β-Ocimene | 888 | 888 | 1046 | 1048 | ||
| 81, 95, 137 | • | Terpinolene | 907 | 920 | 1087 | 1087 | • |
| 43, 57, 117, 159 | Propyl hexanoate | 921 | 921 | 1097 | 1096 (Robinson et al. | ||
| 43, 57, 117, 159 | • | Ethyl heptanoate | 895 | 895 | 1101 | 1098 (Robinson et al. | • |
| 57, 159 | • | Methyl octanoate | 935 | 946 | 1125 | 1128 | |
| 43, 57, 71, 145, 173 | Butyl hexanoate | 918 | 918 | 1196 | 1188 (Pino et al. 201) | • | |
| 43, 57, 71, 145, 173 | • | Ethyl octanoate | 934 | 935 | 1199 | 1196 | • |
| 43, 57, 155, 187 | • | Methyl decanoate | 906 | 909 | 1316 | 1326 | |
| 81, 109, 121,135, 137, 149, 205 | α-Cubebene | 865 | 865 | 1349 | 1351 | ||
| 81, 109, 121,135, 137, 149, 206 | α-Ylangene | 835 | 838 | 1375 | 1370 | ||
| 81, 109, 121,135, 137, 149, 205 | α-Copaene | 953 | 962 | 1378 | 1376 | ||
| 81, 109, 121, 135, 137, 149, 205 | β-Elemene | 894 | 896 | 1391 | 1390 | ||
| 81, 109, 121, 135, 137, 149, 205 | β-Cubebene | 842 | 850 | 1392 | 1387 | ||
| 43, 57, 71, 155, 201 | • | Ethyl decanoate | 908 | 908 | 1406 | 1395 | |
| 81, 109, 121,135, 137, 149, 205 | α-Gurjinene | 917 | 918 | 1409 | 1409 | ||
| 81, 109, 121,135, 137, 149, 205 | α-Cedrene | 804 | 858 | 1415 | 1412 | ||
| 81, 109, 121,135, 137, 149, 205 | • | β-Caryophyllene | 904 | 904 | 1420 | 1420 | • |
| 81, 109, 121,135, 137, 149, 205 | Bicyclosesquiphellandrene | 865 | 865 | 1468 | 1464 | ||
| 81, 109, 121,135, 137, 149, 205 | γ-Muurolene | 884 | 884 | 1482 | 1476 | ||
| 81, 109, 121, 135, 137, 149, 205 | Germacrene D | 898 | 944 | 1486 | 1481 | ||
| 81, 109, 121, 135, 137, 149, 205 | α-Muurolene | 883 | 883 | 1499 | 1498 | ||
| (fragmentation not measured for C14 ester)229 | Ethyl dodecanoate | 882 | 907 | 1607 | 1593 | • | |
| 81, 109, 121,135, 137, 149, 205 | γ-cadinene | 905 | 905 | 1520 | 1513 | ||
| 81, 109, 121,135, 137, 149, 205 | λ-Cadinene | 915 | 915 | 1530 | 1523 | ||
| (fragmentation not measured for C15 ester)257 | Ethyl tetradecanoate | 824 | 824 | 1793 | 1794 |
TPRIs are presented next to reference retention indices from Babushok et al. (2011) unless otherwise stated
Fig. 1PTR mass spectrum taken during the batch ‘Tommy Atkins’ analysis at ripeness stage IV (non-deconvoluted spectrum—peak labeling based on protonated parent ions)
Fig. 2Principle component analysis of the mango ripening experiment (ellipses represent a 95 % confidence interval). Tommy Atkins Mango 1 = batch experiment, TA Mangos 2 and 3 represent single stage II mangos analyzed under dry nitrogen and VOC scrubbed air, respectively. Keitt Mango 1 = batch experiment, K Mango 2 represents the single stage II Keitt Mango experiment
Fig. 3ATD-GC–MS Analysis during the ripening of the batch ‘Tommy Atkins’ experiment at a 48 h, b 96 h and, c 192 h
Fig. 4Time profiles for selected species (in ncps) during the ‘batch’ ‘Tomy Atkins’ analysis (the series have been magnified as a visual aid by the factor shown in brackets)
Fig. 5a Comparison of relative contribution of different compound classes for stage II ripened mangoes to the total signal of lightweight VOCS (based on ions assignments outlined in this paper (terpenes = 81, 109, 121, 137, 194, 205; alcohols = 29, 33, 47; ketones = 59, 73; aldehydes = 45; esters = 89, 103, 117, 131, 145, 159, 173, 201, 229 and 257). b % ion count of lightweight VOCs measured during the ‘Tommy Atkins’ batch experiment based on ions assignments outlined in this paper (terpenes = 81, 109, 121, 137, 194, 205; alcohols = 29, 33, 47; ketones = 59, 73; aldehydes = 45; esters = 89, 103, 117, 131, 145, 159, 173, 201, 229 and 257)