| Literature DB >> 35392280 |
Wenchao Cai1,2,3, Yurong Wang1,3, Wenping Wang3,4, Na Shu3,4, Qiangchuan Hou1,4, Fengxian Tang2, Chunhui Shan2, Xinquan Yang2, Zhuang Guo1,3.
Abstract
Aroma is among the principal quality indicators for evaluating Baijiu. The aroma profiles of sauce-flavor Baijiu produced by 10 different manufacturers were determined by GC-IMS. The results showed that GC-IMS could effectively separate the volatile compounds in Baijiu, and a total of 80 consensus volatile compounds were rapidly detected from all samples, among which 29 volatile compounds were identified, including 5 alcohols, 14 esters, 2 acids, 2 ketones, 5 aldehydes, and 1 furan. According to the differences in aroma profile found by multivariate statistical analysis, these sauce-flavor Baijiu produced by 10 different manufacturers can be further divided into three types. The relative odor activity value of the identified volatile compounds indicated that seven volatile compounds contributed most to the aroma of sauce-flavor Baijiu in order of aroma contribution rate, and they were ethyl hexanoate, ethyl pentanoate, ethyl 2-methylbutanoate, ethyl octanoate (also known as octanoic acid ethyl ester), ethyl 3-methylbutanoate, ethyl butanoate, and ethyl isobutyrate. Correspondingly, the main aromas of these sauce-flavor Baijiu produced by 10 different manufacturers were sweet, fruity, alcoholic, etheral, cognac, rummy, and winey. On the one hand, this study proved that GC-IMS is well adapted to the detection of characteristic volatile aroma compounds and trace compounds in Baijiu, which is of positive significance for improving the aroma fingerprint and database of sauce-flavor Baijiu. On the other hand, it also enriched our knowledge of Baijiu and provided references for the evaluation and regulation of the flavor quality of sauce-flavor Baijiu.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35392280 PMCID: PMC8983223 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4614330
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anal Methods Chem ISSN: 2090-8873 Impact factor: 2.193
Figure 1Two-dimensional top view of GC-IMS spectrum.
Figure 2Aroma fingerprint of SFB samples produced by 10 different manufacturers generated using gallery plot plugin of LAV software.
Figure 3Relative content of volatile compounds in SFB samples produced by 10 different manufacturers.
Figure 4Optimal number of clusters based on the aroma profiles of SFB samples calculated by k-means algorithm (a); dendrogram based on UPGMA (b); dendrogram based on Bray–Curtis distance calculated using Mahalanobis distances as well as MANOVA (c).
Figure 5PCA loading plot (a) and score plot (b) based on the aroma profiles of SFB samples.
Figure 6Identification of differential volatile compounds among different types of SFB samples via LEfSe. Cladogram of the volatile compounds (a). Significant differential volatile compounds of type 1 SFB samples, type 2 SFB samples and type 3 SFB samples are represented by red, green and blue, respectively. while other compounds are represented by yellow. Branch areas are shaded according to the highest-ranked variety for that taxon. The LDA score indicates the level of differentiation among different types of SFB. A threshold value of 2.0 was used as the cut-off level. Horizontal bar chart showing differential volatile compounds (b). Significant differential volatile compounds of type 1 SFB samples, type 2 SFB samples and type 3 SFB samples are represented by red, green and blue, respectively.
Figure 7Aroma-active compounds identified by ROAV and VIP. Volatile compounds with VIP > 1 and volatile compounds with VIP < 1 are represented by red and green, respectively.