| Literature DB >> 36230187 |
Andrea Caratti1, Simone Squara1, Federico Stilo1, Sonia Battaglino1, Erica Liberto1, Irene Cincera2, Giuseppe Genova2, Nicola Spigolon2, Carlo Bicchi1, Chiara Cordero1.
Abstract
Edible nuts and dried fruits, usually traded together in the global market, are one of the cornerstones of the Mediterranean diet representing a source of essential nutrients and bioactives. The food industry has an interest in the selection of high-quality materials for new product development while also matching consumers' expectations in terms of sensory quality. In this study, walnuts (Juglans regia), almonds (Prunus dulcis), and dried pineapples (Ananas comosus) are selected as food models to develop an integrated analytical strategy for the informative volatile organic compounds (VOCs) quali- and quantitative profiling. The study deals with VOCs monitoring over time (12 months) and in the function of storage conditions (temperature and atmosphere).VOCs are targeted within those: (i) with a role in the product's aroma blueprint (i.e., key-aromas and potent odorants); (ii) responsible for sensory degradation (i.e., rancidity); and/or (iii) formed by lipid autoxidation process. By accurate quantitative determination of volatile lipid oxidation markers (i.e., hexanal, heptanal, octanal, nonanal, decanal, (E)-2-heptenal, (E)-2-octenal, (E)-2-nonenal) product quality benchmarking is achieved. The combination of detailed VOCs profiling by headspace solid phase microextraction (HS-SPME) combined with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and accurate quantification of rancidity markers by multiple headspace-SPME (MHS-SPME) answers many different questions about shelf-life (i.e., aroma, storage stability, impact of temperature and storage atmosphere, rancidity level), while providing reliable and robust data for long-range studies and quality controls. The quantification associated with HS-SPME profiling is demonstrated and critically commented on to help the industrial research in a better understanding of the most suitable analytical strategies for supporting primary materials selection and new product development.Entities:
Keywords: GC-MS; MHS-SPME sampling; accurate quantification of volatiles; aroma blueprint; dried fruits and nuts; volatile organic compounds
Year: 2022 PMID: 36230187 PMCID: PMC9563258 DOI: 10.3390/foods11193111
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
List of analyzed samples together with their characteristics and acronyms.
| Storage | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample Type | Acronym | Shelf-Life | Temperature | Atmosphere | Subsamples | N° Samples |
| Walnut | WAL | 0 months—t0 | - | - | R1, R2, R3 | 3 |
| Walnut | WAL | 4 months—t4 | 5 °C | NA, SV | R1, R2, R3 | 6 |
| Walnut | WAL | 4 months—t4 | 18 °C | NA, SV | R1, R2, R3 | 6 |
| Walnut | WAL | 8 months—t8 | 5 °C | NA, SV | R1, R2, R3 | 6 |
| Walnut | WAL | 8 months—t8 | 18 °C | NA, SV | R1, R2, R3 | 6 |
| Walnut | WAL | 12 months—t12 | 5 °C | NA, SV | R1, R2, R3 | 6 |
| Walnut | WAL | 12 months—t12 | 18 °C | NA, SV | R1, R2, R3 | 6 |
| Almond | ALM | 0 months—t0 | - | - | R1, R2, R3 | 3 |
| Almond | ALM | 4 months—t4 | 5 °C | NA, SV | R1, R2, R3 | 6 |
| Almond | ALM | 4 months—t4 | 18 °C | NA, SV | R1, R2, R3 | 6 |
| Almond | ALM | 8 months—t8 | 5 °C | NA, SV | R1, R2, R3 | 6 |
| Almond | ALM | 8 months—t8 | 18 °C | NA, SV | R1, R2, R3 | 6 |
| Almond | ALM | 12 months—t12 | 5 °C | NA, SV | R1, R2, R3 | 6 |
| Almond | ALM | 12 months—t12 | 18 °C | NA, SV | R1, R2, R3 | 6 |
| Pineapple | PINE | 0 months—t0 | - | - | R1, R2, R3 | 3 |
| Pineapple | PINE | 4 months—t4 | 5 °C | NA | R1, R2, R3 | 3 |
| Pineapple | PINE | 4 months—t4 | 18 °C | NA | R1, R2, R3 | 3 |
| Pineapple | PINE | 8 months—t8 | 5 °C | NA | R1, R2, R3 | 3 |
| Pineapple | PINE | 8 months—t8 | 18 °C | NA | R1, R2, R3 | 3 |
| Pineapple | PINE | 12 months—t12 | 5 °C | NA | R1, R2, R3 | 3 |
| Pineapple | PINE | 12 months—t12 | 18 °C | NA | R1, R2, R3 | 3 |
Planning of experiments by CCD model.
| Exp # | Amount (g) | Time (min) | Temperature (°C) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −1 (0.5) | −1 (30) | −1 (30) |
| 2 | −1 (0.5) | −1 (30) | +1 (60) |
| 3 | −1 (0.5) | 0 (45) | 0 (45) |
| 4 | −1 (0.5) | +1 (60) | −1 (30) |
| 5 | −1 (0.5) | +1 (60) | +1 (60) |
| 6 | 0 (1.75) | -α (20) | 0 (45) |
| 7 | 0 (1.75) | 0 (45) | −1 (30) |
| 8 | 0 (1.75) | 0 (45) | 0 (45) |
| 9 | 0 (1.75) | 0 (45) | 0 (45) |
| 10 | 0 (1.75) | 0 (45) | +α (70) |
| 11 | 0 (1.75) | +α (70) | 0 (45) |
| 12 | + α (3.85) | 0 (45) | 0 (45) |
| 13 | +1 (3) | −1 (30) | −1 (30) |
| 14 | +1 (3) | −1 (30) | +1 (60) |
| 15 | +1 (3) | +1 (60) | −1 (30) |
| 16 | +1 (3) | +1 (60) | +1 (60) |
List of optimal sampling conditions as resulted by DoE for VOCs profiling.
| Sample | Amount | Temperature | Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Walnut | 1.75 g | 40 °C | 60 min |
| Almond | 1.75 g | 50 °C | 45 min |
| Pineapple | 1.75 g | 60 °C | 45 min |
Figure 1PCA scores plot based on normalized chromatographic areas from 95 targeted compounds across all analyzed walnut samples (A). Confidence ellipses (95% of confidence) relate to shelf-life (t0-blue; t4-green; t8-purple; t12-garnet color). In (B) the t12 samples are highlighted.
Figure 2PCA scores plot based on normalized chromatographic areas from 91 targeted compounds across all analyzed almond samples (Figure 1A). Confidence ellipses (95% of confidence) relate to shelf-life (t0-blue; t4-green; t8-purple; t12-garnet color). Insight on t12 samples in (Figure 1B).
Figure 3PCA scores plot based on normalized chromatographic areas from 125 targeted compounds across all analyzed dried pineapple samples (Figure 1A). Confidence ellipses (95% of confidence) relate to shelf-life (t0-blue; t4-green; t8-purple; t12-garnet color). The histogram in Figure 2B reports the squared cosines of the variables on PC1.
Figure 4Heatmap visualization of normalized responses for potent odorants in dried pineapple samples. Hierarchical clustering is based on Pearson correlation after Z-score normalization.
Amounts expressed as ng/g for quantified targeted aldehydes in walnut samples. In bold analytes whose concentration exceeds the OTs (OAV > 1).
| Amount ng/g (Averaged over 3 Replicates/3 Batches ± Absolute Uncertainty) | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample ID | Hexanal | Heptanal | ( | Octanal | ( | Nonanal | Decanal | Hexanal Eq. | |||||||
| WAL_T0 |
|
|
|
|
| 1.5 | ±0.1 | 3.6 | ±0.4 | 1.2 | ±0.1 | 5.6 | ±0.5 | 389.2 | |
| WAL_5NA_T4 |
| ±47.9 | ≤LOD | 4.4 | ±0.8 | 3.4 | ±0.3 | 4.8 | ±0.5 | 3.9 | ±0.4 | 5.3 | ±0.5 | 549.0 | |
| WAL_5NA_T8 |
| ±53.1 | 2.7 | ±0.3 | ≤LOD | 25.9 | ±2.5 | 36.1 | ±3.5 | 8.2 | ±0.8 | 13.8 | ±1.4 | 655.4 | |
| WAL_5NA_T12 |
| ±54.7 | 1.0 | ±0.1 | ≤LOD | 19.7 | ±1.9 | 31.1 | ±3.1 | 26.5 | ±2.6 | 13.7 | ±1.3 | 676.1 | |
| WAL_5SV_T4 |
| ±27.2 | ≤LOD | 1.2 | ±0.2 | 1.7 | ±0.2 | 4.6 | ±0.5 | 1.0 | ±0.1 | 4.7 | ±0.5 | 311.7 | |
| WAL_5SV_T8 |
| ±24.9 | 1.6 | ±0.2 | ≤LOD | 9.5 | ±0.9 | 28.6 | ±2.8 | 2.3 | ±0.2 | 18.0 | ±1.8 | 321.7 | |
| WAL_5SV_T12 |
| ±23.5 | 1.2 | ±0.1 | ≤LOD | 8.0 | ±0.8 | 30.7 | ±3.0 | 3.5 | ±0.3 | 11.0 | ±1.1 | 302.1 | |
| WAL_18NA_T4 |
| ±50.9 | ≤LOD | 21.6 | ±3.9 | 15.5 | ±1.5 | 22.8 | ±2.2 | 16.4 | ±1.6 | 47.2 | ±4.6 | 656.7 | |
| WAL_18NA_T8 |
| ±58.5 | 1.9 | ±0.2 | ≤LOD | 11.4 | ±1.1 | 30.0 | ±2.9 | 8.9 | ±0.9 | 19.1 | ±1.9 | 702.9 | |
| WAL_18NA_T12 |
| ±60.5 | 3.0 | ±0.3 | ≤LOD | 24.0 | ±2.4 | 32.8 | ±3.2 | 15.8 | ±1.5 | 13.3 | ±1.3 | 739.6 | |
| WAL_18SV_T4 |
| ±28.9 | ≤LOD | 2.6 | ±0.5 | 1.0 | ±0.1 | 11.5 | ±1.1 | 10.9 | ±1.1 | 5.1 | ±0.5 | 344.0 | |
| WAL_18SV_T8 |
| ±21.2 | 2.0 | ±0.2 | ≤LOD | 5.8 | ±0.6 | 27.1 | ±2.7 | 2.0 | ±0.2 | 13.4 | ±1.3 | 273.6 | |
| WAL_18SV_T12 |
| ±20.2 | 1.4 | ±0.1 | ≤LOD | 4.4 | ±0.4 | 34.5 | ±3.4 | 8.0 | ±0.8 | 12.3 | ±1.2 | 269.7 | |
Figure 5Histogram reporting hexanal equivalents (ng/g) for walnut samples analyzed at the different shelf-life time points and storage conditions.
Amounts expressed as ng/g for quantified targeted aldehydes in almond samples. In bold are the analytes whose concentration exceeds the OTs (OAV > 1).
| Amount ng/g (Averaged over 3 Replicates/3 Batches ± Absolute Uncertainty) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample ID | Hexanal | Octanal | ( | Nonanal | Decanal | Hexanal Eq. | |||||
| ALM_T0 |
|
|
| ±0.9 | 1.0 | ±0.1 | 10.6 | ±0.8 | 1.4 | ±0.1 | 2363.2 |
| ALM_5NA_T4 |
| ±538.0 | 13.6 | ±1.1 | 2.4 | ±0.2 | 16.0 | ±1.3 | 5.6 | ±0.4 | 6752.2 |
| ALM_5NA_T8 |
| ±984.3 | 21.7 | ±1.7 | 10.0 | ±0.8 | 32.6 | ±2.6 | 2.5 | ±0.2 | 12353.1 |
| ALM_5NA_T12 |
| ±3351.1 |
| ±4.2 | 43.3 | ±3.5 | 99.6 | ±8.0 | 4.2 | ±0.3 | 42037.4 |
| ALM_5SV_T4 |
| ±387.5 | 16.5 | ±1.3 | 1.9 | ±0.2 | 11.9 | ±1.0 | 5.8 | ±0.5 | 4870.0 |
| ALM_5SV_T8 |
| ±12.5 | 10.5 | ±13.9 | 1.9 | ±0.2 | 13.88 | ±1.1 | 1.93 | ±0.2 | 9340.5 |
| ALM_5SV_T12 |
| ±12.5 |
| ±13.9 | 17.2 | ±1.4 | 17.5 | ±1.4 | 1.8 | ±0.1 | 11454.7 |
| ALM_18NA_T4 |
| ±318.6 | 13.6 | ±1.1 | 1.4 | ±0.1 | 14.7 | ±1.2 | 6.4 | ±0.5 | 4008.9 |
| ALM_18NA_T8 |
| ±979.6 | 16.3 | ±1.3 | 10.0 | ±0.8 | 64.6 | ±5.2 | 3.7 | ±0.3 | 12313.5 |
| ALM_18NA_T12 |
| ±4712.2 |
| ±6.7 | 57.8 | ±4.6 | 104.3 | ±8.3 | 5.4 | ±0.4 | 59090.9 |
| ALM_18SV_T4 |
| ±452.4 | 13.6 | ±1.1 | 2.4 | ±0.2 | 12.3 | ±1.0 | 4.1 | ±0.3 | 5678.8 |
| ALM_18SV_T8 |
| ±1582.0 | 18.9 | ±1.5 | 14.5 | ±1.2 | 37.4 | ±3.0 | 2.7 | ±0.2 | 19829.8 |
| ALM_18SV_T12 |
| ±4202.1 |
| ±6.0 | 58.6 | ±4.7 | 100.9 | ±8.1 | 10.3 | ±0.8 | 52709.2 |
Figure 6Histogram reporting hexanal equivalents (ng/g) for almond samples analyzed at the different shelf-life time points and storage conditions.
Amounts expressed as ng/g for quantified targeted aldehydes in dried pineapple samples. In bold analytes whose concentration exceeds the OTs (OAV > 1).
| Amount ng/g (Averaged over 3 Replicates/3 Batches ± Absolute Uncertainty) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample ID | Hexanal | Heptanal | ( | Octanal | Nonanal | Decanal | Hexanal Eq. | ||||||
| PINE_T0 |
|
|
|
| ≤LOD | 7.5 | ±0.7 | 18.7 | ±1.8 | 16.6 | ±1.6 | 39.1 | |
| PINE_5NA_T4 | 10.2 | ±1.0 | 1.2 | ±0.1 | ≤LOD | 8.7 | ±0.8 | 19.1 | ±1.8 | 34.4 | ±3.2 | 53.6 | |
| PINE_5NA_T8 | 15.9 | ±1.5 | 0.9 | ±0.1 | 2.4 | ±0.2 | 13.2 | ±1.2 | 19.7 | ±1.8 | 41.9 | ±3.9 | 69.8 |
| PINE_5NA_T12 | 67.1 | ±6.3 | 2.8 | ±0.3 | 1.2 | ±0.1 | 14.8 | ±1.4 | 32.4 | ±3.0 | 29.1 | ±2.7 | 123.7 |
| PINE_18NA_T4 | 12.6 | ±1.2 | 1.3 | ±0.1 | ≤LOD | 10.1 | ±0.9 | 21.9 | ±2.0 | 37.3 | ±3.5 | 61.0 | |
| PINE_18NA_T8 | 25.3 | ±2.4 | 0.7 | ±0.1 | 2.0 | ±0.2 | 15.0 | ±1.4 | 20.6 | ±1.9 | 53.4 | ±5.0 | 88.1 |
| PINE_18NA_T12 | 76.0 | ±7.1 | 7.9 | ±0.7 | 3.4 | ±0.3 | 16.5 | ±1.5 | 94.2 | ±8.8 | 50.4 | ±4.7 | 197.7 |
Figure 7Histogram reporting hexanal equivalents (ng/g) for pineapple samples analyzed at the different shelf-life time points and storage conditions.
Figure 8Linear regression analysis on normalized response data (variable y) vs. the accurate amount of rancidity markers expressed as hexanal equivalents ng/g (variable x). Coefficient of determination (R) and standardized residuals are reported to complete the quality evaluation of results.