| Literature DB >> 35521344 |
Dongdong Du1,2, Min Xu1,2, Jun Wang1,2, Shuang Gu1,2, Luyi Zhu1,2, Xuezhen Hong2,3.
Abstract
'Hongyang' kiwifruit is a new breed of red-fleshed cultivar that has become broadly popular with consumers in recent years. In this study, the internal quality and aroma of this kiwifruit during ripening were investigated by means of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and electronic nose (E-nose). Results showed that the green note aldehydes declined, the main fruity esters increased, and the terpenes had no obvious changes during ripening. Correlations between quality indices, volatile compounds, and E-nose data were analyzed by ANOVA partial least squares regression (APLSR), and the results showed that firmness and titratable acidity (TA) had highly positive correlations with (E)-2-hexenal and hexanal, while soluble solids content (SSC) and SSC/TA ratio had positive correlations with ester compounds. The E-nose sensors of S7, S10, S8, S6, S9, and S2 were positively correlated with ester compounds, S1, S3, and S5 were mainly correlated with hexanal, and S4 was correlated with terpene compounds. Partial least squares regression (PLSR) and support vector machine (SVM) were employed to predict the quality indices by E-nose data, and SVM presented a better performance in predicting firmness, SSC, TA, and SSC/TA ratio (R 2 > 0.98 in the training set and R 2 > 0.94 in the testing set). This study demonstrated that the E-nose technique could be used as an alternative to trace the flavor quality of kiwifruit during ripening. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 35521344 PMCID: PMC9065992 DOI: 10.1039/c9ra03506k
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Sensors in PEN3 E-nose system and their sensitivity description
| Number | Name | Sensitive substances | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | W1C | Aromatic compounds | Toluene, 10 ppm |
| S2 | W5S | Very sensitive, broad range sensitivity, react on nitrogen oxides, very sensitive with negative signal | NO2, 1 ppm |
| S3 | W3C | Ammonia, used as sensor for aromatic compounds | Propane, 1 ppm |
| S4 | W6S | Mainly hydrogen, selectively (breath gases) | H2, 100 ppb |
| S5 | W5C | Alkanes, aromatic compounds, less polar compounds | Propane, 1 ppm |
| S6 | W1S | Sensitive to methane (environment) | CH3, 100 ppm |
| S7 | W1W | Reacts on sulphur compounds, H2S 0.1 ppm. Otherwise sensitive to many terpenes and sulphur organic compounds, which are important for smell, limonene, pyrazine | H2S, 1 ppm |
| S8 | W2S | Detects alcohol's, partially aromatic compounds, broad range | CO, 100 ppm |
| S9 | W2W | Aromatics compounds, sulphur organic compounds | H2S, 1 ppm |
| S10 | W3S | Reacts on high concentrations > 100 ppm, sometime very selective (methane) | CH3, 10CH3, 100 ppm |
Results of physicochemical indices related to internal quality of ‘Hongyang’ kiwifruit during ripeninga
| Ripening time | Day0 | Day3 | Day6 | Day9 | Day12 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Firmness ( | 48.35 ± 1.51a | 53.84 ± 4.16a | 27.48 ± 4.57b | 3.25 ± 0.74c | 2.86 ± 0.40c |
| SSC (%) | 8.91 ± 2.01b | 9.26 ± 2.07b | 17.62 ± 1.16a | 20.54 ± 1.25a | 19.94 ± 0.54a |
| TA (%) | 1.10 ± 0.10a | 1.09 ± 0.13a,b | 0.95 ± 0.09a,b | 0.91 ± 0.01a,b | 0.85 ± 0.08b |
| SSC/TA ratio | 8.10 ± 1.76b | 8.71 ± 2.84b | 18.61 ± 2.41a | 22.63 ± 1.29a | 23.76 ± 2.69a |
Results are expressed as mean values ± stand deviations (n = 3 for each group). Means in the same row followed by different inline letters (a, b, and c) are statistically different by the Tukey's HSD test (P < 0.05).
Volatile compounds (μg kg−1) of ‘Hongyang’ kiwifruit during ripeninga,b
| No. | Constituents | Ripening time | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day0 | Day3 | Day6 | Day9 | Day12 | ||
| 1 | ( | 119.00 ± 17.47a | 49.29 ± 3.11b | 20.78 ± 4.41c | 20.77 ± 4.26c | 21.62 ± 8.85c |
| 2 | ( | 0.21 ± 0.01b | 0.35 ± 0.13a,b | 0.32 ± 0.10a,b | 0.14 ± 0.05b | 0.56 ± 0.11a |
| 3 | Octanal | ND | 0.02 ± 0.01b | ND | 0.24 ± 0.12a | ND |
| 4 | Hexanal | 10.92 ± 0.10a | 10.74 ± 0.42a | 9.26 ± 0.67a | 10.00 ± 0.79a | 3.49 ± 1.01b |
| 5 | Nonanal | ND | 1.60 ± 0.39a | ND | 1.45 ± 0.36a | 1.47 ± 0.62a |
| 6 | Decanal | 1.05 ± 0.95b | ND | ND | 2.94 ± 0.65a | 1.82 ± 0.38a,b |
| 7 | Benzaldehyde | ND | ND | 0.66 ± 0.08a,b | 1.10 ± 0.16a | 1.00 ± 0.22a |
| 8 |
| ND | 0.74 ± 0.10a | 0.79 ± 0.09a | 0.54 ± 0.14a,b | 0.66 ± 0.04a |
| 9 | Terpinolene | ND | 0.13 ± 0.04a | 0.12 ± 0.05a | 0.09 ± 0.03a | 0.10 ± 0.02a |
| 10 | γ-Terpinene | ND | 0.10 ± 0.03a | ND | 0.08 ± 0.02a | 0.07 ± 0.01a |
| 11 | Eucalyptol | 1.46 ± 0.52b | 6.05 ± 0.54a | 6.79 ± 0.27a | 6.91 ± 0.50a | 6.08 ± 0.28a |
| 12 | ( | ND | 1.03 ± 0.21 | ND | ND | ND |
| 13 | ( | ND | 1.16 ± 0.16 | ND | ND | ND |
| 14 | Methyl butanoate | ND | ND | 1.49 ± 0.22b | 12.72 ± 1.21a | 14.26 ± 0.55a |
| 15 | Methyl benzoate | ND | ND | 0.33 ± 0.05c | 6.88 ± 0.40a | 3.92 ± 0.31b |
| 16 | Methyl hexanoate | ND | ND | 1.26 ± 0.27c | 3.27 ± 0.23a | 2.26 ± 0.08b |
| 17 | Ethyl butyrate | ND | ND | ND | 10.04 ± 0.65a | 6.87 ± 0.16b |
| 18 | Ethyl hexanoate | ND | ND | ND | 9.51 ± 0.58a | 7.45 ± 0.45b |
| 19 | Methyl salicylate | ND | ND | ND | 0.52 ± 0.05 | ND |
| 20 | Ethyl benzoate | ND | ND | ND | 0.42 ± 0.07 | ND |
| 21 | Isobutyl hexanoate | ND | ND | ND | 0.29 ± 0.03 | ND |
ND, not identified.
Results are expressed as mean values ± stand deviations (n = 3 for each group). Means in the same row, followed by the same letter, or without a letter, are not significantly different (P < 0.05), determined by the Tukey's HSD test.
Fig. 1Correlation loadings plot for PC1 versus PC2. The model was derived from volatile compounds as the X-matrix (blue circles) and quality indices as the Y-matrix (red circles). The small and big ellipses represent R2 = 50 and 100%, respectively.
Fig. 2Responses of E-nose to the aroma of kiwifruit: (a) a typical E-nose response of 10 sensor curves during 90 s measurement and (b) mean values of sensor responses at the 80th second obtained from samples at different ripening times.
Fig. 3Visualization of the distribution of kiwifruit samples by PCA.
Fig. 4Discrimination of kiwifruit samples by LDA.
Fig. 5Correlation loadings plot for E-nose data (X-matrix) and volatile compounds (Y-matrix). The concentric small and big ellipses showed the locus of 50 and 100% explained variance.
Fig. 6Predicted versus actual values from PLSR and SVM models: (1) presents PLSR and (2) presents SVM; (a) stands for firmness, (b) stands for SSC, (c) stands for TA, and (d) stands for SSC/TA ratio.
Results of evaluating parameters for prediction models based on PLSR and SVM
| Algorithms | Quality indices | Training set | Testing set | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| RMSE |
| RMSE | ||
| PLSR | Firmness | 0.9207 | 6.1007 | 0.9439 | 5.1904 |
| SSC | 0.9228 | 1.6118 | 0.9405 | 1.3071 | |
| TA | 0.9013 | 0.0276 | 0.9387 | 0.0252 | |
| SSC/TA ratio | 0.9158 | 1.9503 | 0.9448 | 1.6288 | |
| SVM | Firmness | 0.9980 | 0.9662 | 0.9945 | 1.6347 |
| SSC | 0.9907 | 0.5025 | 0.9668 | 0.9201 | |
| TA | 0.9885 | 0.0107 | 0.9454 | 0.0223 | |
| SSC/TA ratio | 0.9914 | 0.6312 | 0.9775 | 1.0941 | |