| Literature DB >> 32019212 |
Dong Wang1,2,3,4, Hafiz Umer Javed1,4,5, Ying Shi1,4, Safina Naz6, Sajid Ali6, Chang-Qing Duan1,4.
Abstract
Air- and sun-dried raisins from Thompson Seedless (TS) grapes were analyzed under GC/MS to evaluate fatty acids (FAs) and their derived volatile compounds, coming from unsaturated fatty acids oxidation. A total of 16 FAs were identified in TS raisins, including 10 saturated fatty acids (SFAs) and 6 unsaturated fatty acids (USFAs). The contents of C18:0, C15:0, and C16:0 among SFAs and C18:3, C18:2 and C18:1 in USFAs were significantly higher. Furthermore, USFAs such as C16:1 and C20:1 were only identified in air-dried raisins. The principal component analysis showed the increased content of FAs and FA-derived compounds were in air-dried and sun-dried raisins, respectively. Among FA-derived compounds, 2-pentyl furan, 3-octen-2-one, 1-hexanol and heptanoic acid were more potent. This study shows that air-drying is more favorable for the production of fatty acids (SFAs and USFAs), whereas sun-drying is more advantageous in terms of fatty acid-derived volatiles.Entities:
Keywords: GC/MS; UFAO-derived compounds; air- and sun-drying; fatty acids; raisins
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32019212 PMCID: PMC7037874 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25030608
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Identification of different fatty acids (saturated and unsaturated) in air-dried and sun-dried raisins during storage.
| S/No | RT | Fatty Acids | Common Name | ID | Linear Equation | R | Air-Dried | Sun-Dried | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saturated Fatty Acid | 0-M | 4-M | 8-M | 12-M | 0-M | 4-M | 8-M | 12-M | ||||||
| 1 | 10.4 | C12:0 | Lauric acid | 1 | y = 0.1282x + 0.4898 | 0.999 | 2.39a | 0.56b | 0.56b | 0.56b | 0.51b | 0.49b | 0.50b | 0.50b |
| 2 | 11.8 | C14:0 | Myristic acid | 1 | y = 0.1344x + 0.919 | 0.992 | 1.16a | 1.07b | 1.09b | 1.09b | 0.99c | 0.95d | 0.95d | 0.94d |
| 3 | 12.6 | C15:0 | Pentadecylic acid | 1 | y = 0.1395x + 1.8572 | 0.991 | 1.89b | 1.90b | 1.91a | 1.91a | 1.88c | 1.86d | 1.87d | 1.86d |
| 4 | 13.4 | C16:0 | Palmitic acid | 1 | y = 0.0148x + 0.8343 | 0.990 | 1.68a | 1.37b | 1.26c | 1.27c | 0.97d | 0.91e | 0.91e | 0.92e |
| 5 | 14.4 | C17:0 | Margaric acid | 1 | y = 0.1428x + 0.5216 | 0.993 | 0.63a | 0.62a | 0.62a | 0.62a | 0.55b | 0.53b | 0.54b | 0.53b |
| 6 | 15.4 | C18:0 | Stearic acid | 1 | y = 0.1428x + 0.5216 | 0.993 | 4.41a | 3.75b | 3.45c | 3.38c | 1.14d | 1.10d | 1.04d | 1.10d |
| 7 | 18.2 | C20:0 | Arachidic acid | 1 | y = 0.2098x + 0.6079 | 0.991 | 0.99a | 0.96a | 0.95a | 0.96a | 0.69b | 0.65b | 0.67b | 0.66b |
| 8 | 21.9 | C22:0 | Behenic acid | 1 | y = 0.1511x + 0.2175 | 0.995 | 0.70a | 0.68a | 0.69a | 0.68a | 0.29b | 0.27b | 0.28b | 0.28b |
| 9 | 24.4 | C23:0 | Tricosylic acid | 1 | y = 0.1259x + 0.2172 | 0.995 | 0.28ab | 0.28ab | 0.29a | 0.29a | 0.23c | 0.23c | 0.23c | 0.23c |
| 10 | 27.6 | C24:0 | Lignoceric acid | 1 | y = 0.0953x + 0.1182 | 0.997 | 0.26a | 0.24a | 0.24a | 0.24a | 0.15b | 0.14b | 0.14b | 0.14b |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| 11 | 13.8 | C16:1 | Palmitoleic acid | 1 | y = 0.1042x + 0.7286 | 0.991 | 0.73a | 0.74a | 0.74a | 0.74a | NF | NF | NF | NF |
| 12 | 15.8 | C18:1 | Oleic acid | 1 | y = 0.1283x + 1.5322 | 0.993 | 2.03a | 1.51b | 1.58b | 1.62b | 0.70c | 0.66d | 0.64d | 0.66d |
| 13 | 16.4 | C18:2 | Linoleic acid | 1 | y = 0.0883x + 1.3784 | 0.993 | 3.52a | 2.78b | 2.66bc | 2.53c | 1.61d | 1.47d | 1.50d | 1.52d |
| 14 | 17.3 | C18:3 | Linolenic acid | 1 | y = 0.1006x + 0.5955 | 0.997 | 1.96a | 1.93ab | 1.90b | 1.92ab | 1.59c | 1.57c | 1.57c | 1.59c |
| 15 | 18.6 | C20:1 | Paullinic acid | 1 | y = 0.053x + 0.2264 | 0.994 | 0.24a | 0.24a | 0.24a | 0.24a | NF | NF | NF | NF |
| 16 | 22.4 | C22:1 | Erucic acid | 2 | 1.54a | 1.10b | 1.04b | 1.10b | 0.68c | 0.63c | 0.67c | 0.66c | ||
RT: retention time. ID (identification method): 1, identified, mass spectrum and RI were in accordance with standards; 2, tentatively identified, mass spectrum matched in the standard NIST 2008 library and RI matched with NIST Standard Reference Database (NIST Chemistry WebBook). Linear equation: concentration in mg/L; x, peak area ratio of a compound into the internal standard (4-methyl-2-pentanol). R: Regression coefficient.
Figure 1Effect of drying method on total saturated fatty acids (TSFAs), total unsaturated fatty acids (TUSFAs) and total fatty acids (TFAs) of raisins. Different lettering indicates a significance level p < 0.005; n = 3.
Figure 2Effect of sun- and air-drying methods on the different classes of fatty acid-derived compounds.
Figure 3Post-storage changes of different classes of fatty acid-derived compounds in sun-dried raisins.
Figure 4Post-storage changes of different classes of fatty acid-derived compounds in air-dried raisins.
Figure 5PCA (A) score plot for samples and (B) loadings plot based on fatty acids and their derived volatile compounds during storage.
Figure 6Heatmap visualization of fatty acid-derived volatile compounds of Thompson Seedless raisins.
The description of identified UFAO-derived compounds in Thompson seedless raisins.
| S/No | RI | Volatile Compounds | Source | ID-M | Ion ( | Formula | Precursor | Aroma Descriptor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1227 | Ethyl hexanoate | Ester | 1 | 88 | C8H16O2 | Linoleic acid | Fruity, apple-like |
| 2 | 1432 | Ethyl octanoate | Ester | 2 | 74 | C10H20O2 | Linoleic acid, Linolenic acid | Apple, fruity, sweet |
| 3 | 1378 | Methyl octanoate | Ester | 2 | 88 | C9H18O2 | Oleic acid | Fruity, citrus like |
| 4 | 2035 | γ-Nonalactone | Ester | 2 | 85 | C9H16O2 | Linoleic acid | Coconut, peach |
| 5 | 975 | Pentanal | Aldehyde | 2 | 44 | C5H10O | Linoleic acid, Arachidonic acid | Fat, Green |
| 6 | 1178 | Heptanal | Aldehyde | 2 | 44 | C7H14O | Linoleic acid | Dry fish, solvent, smoky |
| 7 | 1325 | Aldehyde | 2 | 41 | C7H12O | Linoleic acid | Fatty, soapy, tallow | |
| 8 | 1393 | Nonanal | Aldehyde | 1 | 57 | C9H18O | Linoleic acid | Green, Fruity |
| 9 | 1501 | Decanal | Aldehyde | 1 | 43 | C10H20O | Oleic acid | Sweet, citrus, green |
| 10 | 1497 | Aldehyde | 2 | 81 | C7H10O | Linolenic acid | Fatty, hay | |
| 11 | 1705 | Aldehyde | 2 | 81 | C9H14O | Linoleic acid | Fatty, oily | |
| 12 | 1349 | 1-Hexanol | Alcohol | 2 | 56 | C6H14O | NF | green |
| 13 | 1395 | Alcohol | 2 | 67 | C6H12O | NF | Fruity, green | |
| 14 | 1449 | 1-Octen-3-ol | Alcohol | 1 | 57 | C8H16O | Arachidonic acid | Mushroom, fruity |
| 15 | 1453 | 1-Heptanol | Alcohol | 2 | 70 | C7H16O | Oleic acid | Grape, sweet |
| 16 | 1487 | 2-Ethyl-1-hexanol | Alcohol | 1 | 57 | C8H18O | NF | Floral, sweet fruity |
| 17 | 1555 | 1-Octanol | Alcohol | 1 | 56 | C8H18O | Methyl Oleate | Citrus, rose |
| 18 | 1614 | Alcohol | 2 | 57 | C8H16O | Oleic acid | Fatty, rancid | |
| 19 | 1657 | 1-Nonanol | Alcohol | 1 | 56 | C9H20O | NF | Floral |
| 20 | 1488 | 2-Nonanol | Alcohol | 2 | 45 | C9H20O | NF | NF |
| 21 | 1740 | Pentanoic acid | Acid | 2 | 60 | C5H10O2 | Methyl Linoleic acid | Sweet |
| 22 | 1847 | Hexanoic acid | Acid | 1 | 60 | C6H12O2 | Methyl Linoleic acid | Rancid, Cheese, Fatty |
| 23 | 1953 | Heptanoic acid | Acid | 1 | 60 | C7H14O2 | Methyl Linoleic acid | Sweety, cheesy |
| 24 | 2060 | Octanoic acid | Acid | 1 | 60 | C8H16O2 | Methyl Linoleic acid | Rancid, Cheese, Fatty |
| 25 | 1416 | 3-Octen-2-one | Ketone | 2 | 55 | C8H14O | Arachidonic acid | Green, fruity |
| 26 | 1224 | 2-Pentyl furan | Furan | 2 | 81 | C9H14O | Linoleic acid | Fruity, green, sweet |
Reported the precursor (fatty acids) of their respected volatile compounds ( Frankel 1980; Frankel, Neff, and Edward S. 1981; Horvat et al. 1968; Meeting, Ho, and Hartman 1994; Whitfield and Mottram 1992; Belitz, Garcia and Wayne, 2004); NF = not found; Retention Indices (RI): Kovats RI was calculated based on the n-alkane series (C6–C24) on the poly (ethylene glycol) (PEG) column under the same chromatographic conditions. Aroma descriptors were obtained from “Flavornet and human odor space” the LRI and odor database ( http://www.odour.org.uk/odour/index.html) and from reported literature ( Jiang & Zhang, 2010; Wang et al., 2017; Welke et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2016). Identification method (ID-M): 1, identified, mass spectrum and RI were in accordance with standards; 2, tentatively identified, mass spectrum matched in the standard NIST 2008 library and RI matched with NIST Standard Reference Database (NIST Chemistry WebBook). Ion (m/z): The characteristic ion (m/z) was used for choosing the corresponding compound and evaluating the peak areas of them in order to avoid possible interference by other compounds.