Differentiation between Flavors of Sweet Orange (Citrus

Subscriber access provided by READING UNIV

Article

Differentiation between the flavors of sweet orange (Citrus sinensis) and mandarin (Citrus reticulata) Shi Feng, Joon Hyuk Suh, Fred G. Gmitter Jr., and Yu Wang J. Agric. Food Chem., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.7b04968 • Publication Date (Web): 14 Dec 2017 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on December 19, 2017

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 34

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

Differentiation between the flavors of sweet orange (Citrus sinensis) and mandarin (Citrus reticulata) Shi Feng §†, Joon Hyuk Suh†, Fred G. Gmitter# and Yu Wang*† §

Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Florida, 572 Newell Dr., Gainesville, FL 32611, USA † Citrus Research and Education Center, Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Florida, 700 Experiment Station Rd, Lake Alfred, FL 33850, United States # Citrus Research and Education Center, Horticultural Science, University of Florida, 700 Experiment Station Rd, Lake Alfred, FL 33850, United States

* Corresponding author: Yu Wang, Tel.: 863-956-8673; Fax: (863)-956-4631; Email: [email protected].

1 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


1 2

Abstract Pioneering investigations referring to citrus flavor have been intensively conducted.

3

However, the characteristic flavor difference between sweet orange and mandarin has not been

4

defined. In this study, sensory analysis illustrated the crucial role of aroma in the differentiation

5

between orange flavor and mandarin flavor. To study aroma, Valencia orange and LB8-9

6

mandarin were used. Their most aroma-active compounds were preliminarily identified by aroma

7

extract dilution analysis (AEDA). Quantitation of key volatiles followed by calculation of odor

8

activity values (OAVs) further detected potent components (OAV≥1) impacting the overall

9

aromatic profile of orange/mandarin. Follow-up aroma profile analysis revealed ethyl butanoate,

10

ethyl 2-methylbutanoate, octanal, decanal and acetaldehyde were essential for orange-like aroma,

11

whereas linalool, octanal, α-pinene, limonene and (E,E)-2,4-decadienal were considered key

12

components for mandarin-like aroma. Furthermore, an unreleased mandarin hybrid producing

13

fruit with orange-like flavor was used to validate the identification of characteristic volatiles in

14

orange-like aroma.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Keywords: sensory analysis, Valencia orange, LB8-9 mandarin, aroma extract dilution analysis,

23

aroma profile analysis, orange-like flavor mandarin hybrid


Page 2 of 34

Page 3 of 34

24


Introduction

25

Sweet orange (Citrus sinensis) and mandarin (Citrus reticulate) fruit are the two most

26

widely consumed citrus crops worldwide. The United States is one of the world’s main

27

producers of oranges and mandarins, with Florida as a primary contributor. In Florida, the

28

majority of orange fruit is processed, whereas mandarins are commonly consumed as fresh fruits.

29

The flavors of orange and mandarin have been largely investigated over the last decades.

30

As early as 1998, application of the aroma extract dilution analysis (AEDA) helped detect 42

31

odor-active compounds in Valencia late orange juice, while application of the static

32

headspace/olfactometry (SHO) has been used to reveal the most odor-active compounds in the

33

headspace above juice. 1 In a following study, twenty-five odor-active compounds were

34

quantitated in the juice of Valencia late and Navel oranges using stable isotope dilution assays to

35

evaluate the aroma differences. 2 From these two studies, ethyl 2-methylpropanoate, ethyl

36

butanoate, (S)-ethyl 2-methylbutanoate, 3a,4,5,7a-tetrahydro-3,6-dimethyl-2(3H)-benzofuranone

37

(wine lactone) and (Z)-hex-3-enal have been proved to be the most potent odorants in orange

38

juices based on their high flavor dilution factors (FD factors), as well as OAVs. Moreover, (R)-α-

39

pinene, (R)-limonene, ethyl butanoate, (S)-ethyl 2-methylbutanoate and acetaldehyde were also

40

demonstrated as the most odor-active compounds in the headspace above the juice. In an aroma

41

study of three different Satsuma mandarin varieties, limonene, linalool, γ-terpinene, β-myrcene,

42

α-pinene and octanal were demonstrated as key aroma components by headspace solid phase

43

microextraction (HS-SPME)-combined with GC-MS. 3 Furthermore, core aroma volatiles in

44

mandarin juice were considered to be as linalool, α-terpineol, terpinen-4-ol, nonanal, decanal,

45

carvone, limonene, α-pinene and myrcene. 4 According to previous studies, the compositions of

46

aroma compounds and even certain key odor-active compounds in orange and mandarin largely



47

overlap, which is not surprising since orange is actually a complex hybrid derived from genomic

48

introgression of mandarin and pummelo (Citrus maxima). To date, however, it is still not clear

49

what makes the characteristic differences between the flavors of orange and mandarin.

50

Huanglongbing (HLB), one of the most severe citrus diseases distributed worldwide, is

51

presumably caused by the bacterium, Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus, 5 and currently has no

52

established cure. It is now the largest concern for the citrus industry, specifically in the

53

production of orange juice. The citrus breeding program in the Citrus Research and Education

54

Center (CREC) of the University of Florida (Lake Alfred, FL) has identified some specific

55

mandarin hybrid selections that have shown relatively high tolerance to HLB. Moreover, some of

56

these HLB-tolerant mandarin hybrid selections, such as the unreleased hybrid 6-2-55, produce

57

fruit with a distinctive orange-like flavor, yet they have many of the physical characteristics of

58

mandarin fruit and trees. This makes it more interesting to determine the flavor differences

59

between orange and mandarin. Furthermore, based on a better understanding of orange versus

60

mandarin flavor, it might be possible that some HLB-tolerant mandarin hybrids have the

61

potential to be used as supplemental materials in orange juice products.

62

Therefore, the aim of the present study was to decode/differentiate the characteristic

63

flavor of orange and mandarin by studying Valencia orange and LB8-9 mandarin through aroma

64

recombination and omission studies, and to validate the decoded theory using 6-2-55 mandarin

65

hybrid as a confirmation.

66

Materials and Methods

67

Materials

68 69

Fruits of Valencia orange and Hamlin orange were obtained from the local companies. LB8-9 mandarin fruits and 6-2-55 mandarin hybrid fruits were obtained from CREC, UF. Ocean


Page 4 of 34

Page 5 of 34


70

Spray Sweet Mandarin fruits were purchased from the local market. For sensory analysis, fresh

71

fruit juices were immediately prepared after sample receipt, the remaining fruits were stored at -

72

20°C until analytical analysis.

73

Chemicals and reference odorants

74

Reference compounds (Table 1 and Table 3) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St.

75

Louis, MO), Molekula Group, LLC (Santa Ana, CA), Acros Organics (Pittsburgh, PA) and TCI

76

America (Portland, OR). 1-decanol and n-alkanes standard were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich.

77

Dichloromethane was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. Methanol, water (LC-MS grade) and

78

sodium chloride were purchased from Fisher Scientific (Hampton, NH).

79

Sensory analysis

80

Sensory differentiation between orange and mandarin. Two sensory tests, including nose-

81

pinch and pinch-free tests, were performed simultaneously. A panel consisting of 15 panelists

82

(male and female, ages 20-50) was recruited from the CREC. Panelists were trained with fresh

83

squeezed orange/mandarin juices from different varieties to become familiar with the flavors of

84

orange juice and mandarin juice. For the nose-pinch test, a nose clip was used to block the nasal

85

passage of each panelist. For the pinch-free test, panelists conventionally evaluated the samples.

86

Orange juice (Hamlin, Brix 7%)) and Mandarin juice (Ocean Spray Sweet Mandarin, Brix 11%)

87

were freshly made and presented in covered plastic cups. Both juice samples (15 mL each) were

88

randomly presented to panelists. Panelists were asked to consecutively taste the juice without

89

being able to see its color, then choose the orange juice for both tests. If no decision could be

90

made by the panelist, “I don’t know” was recorded for collected results. Panelists’ comments

91

relating to their choices were collected for further interpretation of results.



92

Sensory evaluation of 6-2-55 mandarin hybrid. Juice of 6-2-55 mandarin hybrid (Brix

93

12%) was freshly made and presented in covered plastic cups. Evaluation of the juice sample

94

was performed by 16 panelists (male and female, ages 20-50). Panelists were trained as

95

described above. Each panelist was provided 15 mL of juice. Panelists were asked to evaluate

96

(drink the juice) and define the juice as “orange juice”, “mandarin juice” or “I don’t know”.

97

Comments related to choice were also collected.

98 99

Aroma profile analysis (APA). For APA, a trained panel of seven experienced assessors was asked to evaluate the model mixtures of orange/mandarin juice and their corresponding

100

omission samples. 6,7 Panelists were trained to become familiar with the smells of orange juice

101

and mandarin juice, as well as to differentiate between them. Each sample (~3 mL) was

102

presented in a glass vial (total volume = 20 mL). For model mixtures, aliquots of methanolic

103

stock solutions of reference odorants were combined then mixed with corresponding juice bases

104

(3 mL). The concentrations of the stock solutions and the volume of the aliquots were adjusted to

105

yield final concentrations of each odorant in the model mixture that matched concentrations

106

previously determined in the fruit juice. Omission samples were prepared by omitting a group of

107

odorants from each mixture. Panelists were asked to define the mixture as “orange-like”,

108

“mandarin-like” or “neither”. At completion, the most simplified model mixtures containing

109

essential odorants for orange/mandarin aroma profiles were determined. For the model of 6-2-55,

110

essential odorants for the aroma profiles of orange determined by the final step were combined

111

and mixed with a corresponding juice base as described above. Panelists were asked to define the

112

mixture as “orange-like”, “mandarin-like” or “neither”.

113 114

All procedures involving the human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committees and with the 1964 Helsinki


Page 6 of 34

Page 7 of 34


115

declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study protocol and

116

consent procedure received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the

117

University of Florida. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in

118

the study.

119

Statistical Analysis. For all the sensory tests mentioned above, three choices for each

120

sample/model mixture were provided, which made the chance probability of the test 1/3. We

121

took 50% correct performance after adjustment for chance as a working definition. According to

122

Abbott’s formula, 8 66.7% of panelists should choose the correct answer to illustrate significant

123

differences. Therefore, in the nose-pinch and pinch-free test, at least 10 panelists should choose

124

the correct answer to show a significant difference. Similarly, in the evaluation of 6-2-55 juice

125

and aroma profile analysis, 11 panelists and five panelists were required to show a significant

126

difference, respectively.

127

Extraction of volatile compounds HS-SPME analysis was performed following a modified procedure previously reported. 9

128 129

The juice samples were incubated in a water bath at 40°C for 20 min and then extracted by a 2

130

cm 50/30 µm DVB/CAR/PDMS fiber (Supelco Inc., Bellefonte, PA) for 30 min (40°C).

131

Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry/olfactometry (GC-MS/O) for identification Compound identification was performed following a modified GC-MS/O method

132 133

previously reported. 10 A series of n-alkanes (C7−C30) was used to determine linear retention

134

indices (RI) for each compound.

135

AEDA

136 137

HS-SPME-AEDA was performed by two experienced panelists to determine the FD factors of aroma-active compounds. The juice sample, extracted by HS-SPME, was stepwise



138

diluted using different split ratios, varying from 5:1, 10:1, 20:1, 25:1, 50:1, 100:1, 200:1 to

139

500:1. The same GC conditions and column as described above were used. By definition, the

140

FD factor obtained for each odorant in the HS-SPME-AEDA is equal to the highest spilt ratio.

141

Juice base preparation

142

Hand-squeezed fruit juices were used to prepare juice bases. Fruit juice (~300 mL) was

143

extracted using an equal volume of dichloromethane and stirring for 1 h at room temperature.

144

After solvent extraction, solvent assisted flavor evaporation (SAFE) technique (40°C, 10-3Pa) 11

145

was used to remove volatiles from the mixture of juice and solvent while only the juice residue

146

(volume less or equal to original juice volume) was collected. The juice residue was then

147

extracted with dichloromethane again and the SAFE technique was repeated. The final juice

148

residue was collected as the juice base. The juice bases were used as a matrix for the standard

149

curve, as well as for aroma recombination.

150

Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) for quantitation

151

Quantitation of aroma compounds was performed using identical GC-MS condition with

152

compound identification. The preparation and analysis GC program applied to the standard curve

153

and juice sample were identical with that mentioned above. Quantitation of volatile compounds

154

was conducted by calibration curves that were obtained for each compound from five different

155

concentrations in corresponding juice base matrix. Stock solution of the standards and internal

156

standard (1-decanol, 100 µg/L) were prepared at appropriate concentrations in methanol and

157

stored at -20°C. Standard working solutions were prepared by mixing stock solutions and then

158

diluted in methanol to set up the calibration curve. All working solutions were prepared daily

159

prior to use.

160

Chiral analysis


Page 8 of 34

Page 9 of 34


161

The enantiomeric compositions of linalool and limonene were determined by gas

162

chromatography-mass spectrometry using an Rt-βDEXsm chiral column (30 m × 0.25 mm, 0.25

163

µm film thickness, Restex, PA, USA). Separated by chiral column, two enantiomers of the same

164

analyte compound exited at different times due to different affinities to the stationary phase. The

165

oven temperature was programmed from 40°C (2 min hold) to 220°C (10 min hold) at 5°C/min.

166

Other GC parameters were identical as described above. The juice sample preparation for SPME

167

analysis was identical to that mentioned above, while a split ratio of 1:50 was used for sample

168

injection. Reference enantiomeric standards were used to fulfill isomer identification. For each

169

juice sample, chiral analysis was performed in duplicate.

170

Results and Discussion

171

Sensory evaluation

172

In the nose-pinch test, six panelists selected the correct sample, while one panelist picked

173

the incorrect sample. The remaining eight panelists were unable to tell the difference between the

174

two samples. From the comments, panelists who chose the correct sample made their decisions

175

based on the impression that “orange juice always tastes sourer than mandarin juice” and “orange

176

juice has a tart taste/aftertaste”. In the pinch-free test, 12 panelists (more than required number of

177

panelists to illustrate a significant difference) selected the correct sample while two panelists

178

selected the incorrect sample. Only one panelist could not make a selection. The panelists who

179

failed to select the correct sample commented, “I cannot tell which one is orange juice”.

180

Flavor perception includes a multitude of sensory input, including smell, taste, tactile

181

sensations, visual cues, etc. 12-14 It is mainly based on the responses of olfactory and gustatory

182

receptors to chemical stimuli in food. For the nose-pinch test, taste was the major sensory input

183

panelists had available to define the juice. In fact, orange juice is not necessarily sourer than



184

mandarin, or vice versa; the sourness or sweetness of orange/mandarin varies by cultivars and

185

even by individual fruit. Therefore, the different impressions of taste (sourness of juice)

186

mentioned by panelists were inappropriately used as evidence for differentiating the orange from

187

mandarin samples. Most of the panelists failed to define the juice using the single perception of

188

taste, which clearly lessened the importance of taste as an independent factor affecting the

189

characteristic flavor of orange/mandarin. On the other hand, once opening olfactory perception

190

(pinch-free test), panelists indicated much better perception and interpretation of the flavor of

191

both the orange and mandarin samples. This fact indicated that the aroma of both citrus fruits

192

played a key role in differentiation of orange and mandarin, although the flavor of

193

orange/mandarin is a combined perception of both aroma and taste. From our current

194

understanding, the sensations of taste and smell interact with each other resulting in more than

195

just the sum of their perceptions. Central neural integration of smell and taste inputs has been

196

proven, but only with the precondition of experience with paired taste and odor stimuli. 15-16

197

Moreover, it has been reviewed and summarized from both psychophysical and neuroimaging

198

findings that if there is a taste-odor association, an odor alone may be sufficient to elicit flavor

199

perception (although a taste alone does not seem to do this) due to olfactory-induced synesthesia.

200

13, 17-18

201

In the sensory evaluation of 6-2-55 mandarin hybrid, eleven out of sixteen panelists

202

(equal to required number of panelists to illustrate a significant difference) determined the juice

203

samples to be “orange juice”. Four panelists evaluated it as “mandarin juice” mainly due to the

204

“thick texture”. Only one panelist selected “I don’t know”. 6-2-55 is an unreleased mandarin

205

triploid hybrid, with substantial tolerance of HLB, developed by the UF-CREC citrus breeding

206

program; parents on both sides were sexual and somatic hybrids respectively of mandarin with


Page 10 of 34

Page 11 of 34


207

sweet orange. According to sensory evaluation, the flavor of 6-2-55 was believed to have

208

intensive “orange-like” characteristic, whereas its juice matrix was still recognized as mandarin

209

by some panelists. This implied that 6-2-55 mandarin hybrid could be used as a confirmation to

210

study the differences of flavor between orange and mandarin. Moreover, the characteristic of 6-

211

2-55 indicates the possible future use of it as supplemental material for the orange juice industry,

212

although further industry trials, such as juice processing testing, is necessary and required.

213

Aroma-active compounds in the juices of Valencia and LB8-9

214

AEDA is a useful gas chromatography-olfactometry procedure for the analysis of potent

215

odorants in food extracts. 19 Traditional AEDA is usually applied to the solvent extract of food,

216

whereas recently, headspace techniques have been widely used to simplify the sample

217

preparation procedure before AEDA analysis. Dynamic headspace sampling 20, static headspace

218

sampling 21 and HS-SPME 22 have all been combined with the AEDA technique to complete

219

identification of key volatiles from various food and beverage samples in recent studies. In this

220

study, HS-SPME-AEDA was conducted to determine the aroma-active compounds in juice

221

samples.

222

To screen for the most potent and aroma-active odorants, HS-SPME-AEDA was

223

performed on hand-squeezed juices made from Valencia oranges and LB8-9 mandarins. For both

224

samples, in total of 33 odor-active regions in the FD factor range of 1-500 were detected (Table

225

1). Overall, the major odor qualities of Valencia and LB8-9 were detected as citrus, fruity, floral,

226

grassy and piney, which were mainly raised by esters, aldehydes and terpenes. Moreover,

227

Valencia orange and LB8-9 mandarin had largely overlapping aroma-active compounds with

228

higher FD factors (FD≥5 at least in one sample).



For Valencia juice, the result was consistent with previous flavor studies of orange fruit, 2,

229 230

23-25

231

in the orange aromatic profile. Besides their similarities, different orange cultivars have been

232

reported with certain odorants that did not present with high odor intensity in other cultivars,

233

such as 2/3 methylbutanol in Valencia Late and nootkatone in blood orange. To date, over 100

234

volatiles have been reported in fresh orange juice.26 The natural combination of these volatile

235

compounds in a well-balanced system, including sugars, acids and phenolic compounds,

236

completes orange flavor.

237

in which odorants with high FD factors detected in this study were also shown to be potent

For the juice of LB8-9, odorants identified in this study were previously found with high

238

odor intensities in mandarin fruits,4, 27-28 as well as in the peel/peel oil of mandarin. 29-31

239

Compared to Valencia orange, LB8-9 mandarin showed a prominent difference in its aroma-

240

profile with low, or no, odor activities of esters, including ethyl butanoate, ethyl 2-

241

methylbutanoate, ethyl hexanoate and ethyl octanoate, all important odorants with fruity notes in

242

orange juice. Similarly, fruit juices of 15 mandarin and mandarin hybrid cultivars were

243

investigated in an earlier study while ethyl butanoate and ethyl 2-methylbutanoate were not

244

observed in any sample. 32 A more recent study on diversity among 13 mandarin varieties

245

revealed ethyl butanoate and ethyl hexanoate were only detected in mandarin hybrids such as

246

tangor (C. reticulata × C. sinensis, i.e. mandarin × orange hybrid) and tangelo (C. reticulata× C.

247

paradisi, i.e. mandarin × grapefruit hybrid), while ethyl 2-mehtylbutanoate and ethyl octanoate

248

were not detected. 33 From AEDA alone, nevertheless, no direct or clear conclusion could be

249

drawn to clarify the difference between the aroma profile of orange and mandarin.

250

Quantitation of key aroma compounds and calculation of odor activity values (OAVs) in the

251

juices of Valencia and LB8-9


Page 12 of 34

Page 13 of 34


To decode the characteristic difference of the aroma profile between orange and

252 253

mandarin, 15 odorants (FD≥5) in orange juice were quantitated, while 19 aroma compounds and

254

4 odorants were quantitated in mandarin and 6-2-55 juice, respectively (Table 2). In addition to

255

the aroma-active compounds (FD≥5) determined from AEDA, odorants with low aroma

256

activities (myrcene, (E)-2-hexenal, α-terpineol and thymol) were also quantitated in mandarin

257

juice due to their abundance and importance in mandarin fruits as reported in previous studies. 33-

258

35

259

quantitated. Although ethyl butanoate was not detected in the juice made from frozen 6-2-55

260

mandarin hybrid fruits, juice from fresh fruit possessed a small amount of ethyl butanoate (50

261

µg/L, data not shown). Calibration curves were constructed by plotting the ratio of the analyte

262

peak area to the internal standard peak area against the respective ratio of the analyte

263

concentration to the internal standard concentration. Good linearity of all compounds was

264

observed and demonstrated by the high correlation coefficient (r2) value above 0.99 (data not

265

shown). The precision and accuracy were determined by building three replicates (n=3) of

266

standard curves over three consecutive days. Meanwhile, duplicate samples were analyzed on the

267

same day as each standard curve and over three consecutive days. Precision was expressed by the

268

relative standard deviation (RSD, %), and accuracy was expressed by the percentage of the

269

observed value of each standard curve to the average value of all three standard curves. Both the

270

accuracy and the precision were within the acceptable range (±15%) (Supplemental Table 1,

271

Table 2 and Table 3).

272

For 6-2-55, key odorants for orange-like aroma obtained from aroma recombination were

OAV data are required for confirming the contribution of the odorants to the overall

273

aroma of orange/mandarin juice. By definition, only odorants with OAV ≥1 are suggested to

274

contribute to the overall aroma. Odor thresholds (in water solution) of each aroma compound



Page 14 of 34

275

were obtained from literature data. In orange juice, ethyl 2-methylbutanoate showed the highest

276

OAV of 2956 followed by ethyl butanoate (436), limonene (106), myrcene (45), decanal (38),

277

linalool (24), α-pinene (23), octanal (15), hexanal (13), (E)-2-nonenal (6), nonanal (3) and

278

geraniol (1). For mandarin juice, linalool had the highest OAV of 619, followed by octanal (56),

279

hexanal (20), α-terpineol (17), limonene (14), decanal (7), myrcene (7), α-pinene (4), (E)-2-

280

nonenal (4), (E)-2-hexenal (3), (E)-2-octenal (1), perillaldehyde (1) and geraniol (1). In the juice

281

of 6-2-55, OAVs of quantitated compounds were determined: octanal (120), ethyl butanoate (50)

282

and decanal (48). These compounds with OAV≥1 implied a key impact to the overall aromatic

283

profile of orange juice and mandarin juice, respectively.

284

Chiral analysis

285

Enantiomeric analysis showed that limonene was present in all three juices as almost pure

286

(R)-(+)-enantiomers (>99%), whereas linalool was predominantly the (S)-(-)-enantiomer (Table

287

3 and Figure 1). The results were in good agreement with previous studies on citrus fruits.

288

Limonene occurs in nature commonly as (R)-(+)-enantiomer with a strong smell of oranges, 38

289

while the less common (S)-(-)-isomer contributes a piney, turpentine-like odor. Similarly,

290

linalool has been found in many plants existing as two enantiomers. Both of the isomers give

291

pleasant scent while different odor qualities and odor thresholds are demonstrated.39-40 The (S)-

292

(+)-linalool is described as a more citrusy, fruity note compared to the (R)-(-)-linalool, which is

293

perceived as a woody, lavender note. However, the odor threshold of (S)-(+)-enantiomer in air is

294

3.5-4 times higher than that of (R)-(-)-enantiomer.

295

Aroma recombination and omission studies

1, 36-37

296

To verify the analytical data, aqueous reconstitution models of Valencia orange and LB8-

297

9 mandarin were prepared. Model mixtures containing all odorants with OAVs ≥1 in their actual 14 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 15 of 34


298

concentrations were prepared in corresponding juice bases and were presented to the sensory

299

panel. A simple recombinate of 6-2-55 mandarin hybrid was also prepared. In this way,

300

interactions of a mixture of key odorants at the human odorant receptor level can be addressed.

301

Furthermore, to investigate the contributions of these compounds, aroma omission models for

302

orange and mandarin were prepared based on aroma descriptions of compounds, as well as their

303

OAVs. Each of the reconstitution models was evaluated by the sensory panel and defined as

304

“orange-like”, “mandarin-like” or “neither”.

305

Orange. Compounds with OAV≥1 (α-pinene, ethyl butanoate, ethyl 2-methyl butanoate,

306

hexanal, myrcene, limonene, octanal, nonanal, decanal, (E)-2-nonenal, linalool and geraniol) in

307

their actual concentrations were combined and added into orange juice base to make the original

308

model mixture. In addition, acetaldehyde (8000 µg/L) was added to the original recombinant to

309

include a fresh note, 2 which made model mixture o-1. Different model mixtures for the

310

recombination and omission study are listed in Table 4. In model mixture o-1, the odor note,

311

floral, was too intense, seeming to cover all the other notes perceived. This might be due to the

312

use of a linalool isomer mixture instead of pure (S)-linalool in model mixture o-1. Therefore,

313

model mixture o-2 was prepared, in which linalool was omitted. For model mixture o-2, panelists

314

described an orange-like aroma. To further simplify the model, three aldehydes with relatively

315

low OAVs (hexanal, nonanal and (E)-2-nonenal) were omitted from model mixture o-2 to obtain

316

model mixture o-3. Model mixture o-3 was still recognized as orange-like aroma. The final

317

model mixture o-4 was prepared with omission of a group of terpenes (α-pinene, myrcene,

318

limonene, geraniol) based on model mixture o-3. Panelists evaluated model mixture o-4 and

319

defined it as orange-like aroma, which left acetaldehyde, ethyl butanoate, ethyl 2-

320

methylbutanoate, octanal and decanal as the five essential odorants for orange-like aroma. To



321

verify this conclusion, a recombinant of acetaldehyde, ethyl butanoate, ethyl 2-methylbutanoate,

322

octanal and decanal, in their actual concentrations based on 6-2-55 mandarin hybrid, was also

323

prepared. Acetaldehyde (8000 µg/L), ethyl butanoate (50 µg/L), octanal and decanal were added

324

to 6-2-55 juice base to make the recombinant. Panelists described this 6-2-55 recombinant as

325

orange-like aroma. In the juice of 6-2-55 mandarin hybrid, ethyl 2-methylbutanoate was not

326

detected. The omission of ethyl 2-methylbutanoate from 6-2-55 recombinant did not affect the

327

perception of orange-like aroma, possibly suggesting ethyl 2-methylbutanoate was not as

328

important as the other fruity ester, ethyl butanoate, in the aroma profile of orange.

329

Acetaldehyde, a natural aroma component, is present in almost every fruit. The

330

acetaldehyde content along with ethanol content of orange increase during the growing season,

331

offering a measure of maturity in addition to the solids-acid ratio. 41-42 While it seems that the

332

increase in ethanol levels in fruit adversely affected the flavor quality, acetaldehyde has been

333

suggested to improve fruit flavor. 43 It has been proven to contribute a fresh, pungent odor

334

quality to freshly squeezed orange juice, 44 which was also observed in our study. Acetaldehyde

335

contributed freshness to the orange model mixtures and seemed to help the delivery of the

336

overall aroma. Although being very abundant in fresh orange samples, acetaldehyde was

337

observed to decrease during storage of orange juice, 45 which implied its instability and might

338

explain the absence of acetaldehyde in our orange juice samples. Similarly, acetaldehyde has

339

been detected from fresh juice sample prepared by dynamic headspace but not in thermally

340

treated solvent extraction in previous studies. 1, 46 Ethyl butanoate is a fruity ester occurring

341

naturally in many fruits including oranges, 25 pears, 47 pineapples, 48 etc.. It has been considered

342

as the major volatile ester in orange juice and believed to contribute more than all the other esters

343

combined.49 A general decrease in ethyl butanoate in processed orange juice due to thermal


Page 16 of 34

Page 17 of 34


344

treatment is correlated with decreasing quality of juice product compared to fresh-made juice. 50

345

In the food industry, ethyl butanoate is commonly used as artificial flavoring resembling orange

346

juice. Ethyl 2-methylbutanoate is also an important orange juice ester presenting a pleasant,

347

fruity aroma, although it might not be as important as ethyl butanoate in fresh orange juice.

348

Octanal and decanal, described as citrus-like, soapy notes, are two aldehydes that have been

349

implicated as important contributors to orange flavor. 51 However, contents of octanal and

350

decanal are not necessarily positively correlated to the quality of fresh orange juice since

351

processed juice contains even higher levels mainly from peel oil.

352

Mandarin. Compounds with OAV≥1 (α-pinene, hexanal, myrcene, limonene, (E)-2-

353

hexenal, octanal, (E)-2-octenal, decanal, (E)-2-nonenal, linalool, α-terpineol, perillaldehyde,

354

geraniol) were combined and added into mandarin juice base to make the original model mixture.

355

(E,E)-2,4-decadienal (0.2 µg/L, OAV~1 52) was added to the original recombinant due to its

356

important role in the aroma profile of mandarin 29-30, 32 to introduce an oily note, which made

357

model mixture m-1. Different model mixtures for the recombination and omission study are

358

listed in Table 5. For model mixture m-1, panelists defined it as mandarin-like aroma. To further

359

simplify the model, three odorants (OAVs=1) were omitted from model mixture m-2 compared

360

to model mixture m-1. Model mixture m-2 was still recognized as mandarin-like aroma by

361

panelists. Similarly, three aldehydes ((E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-nonenal and decanal) with low OAVs

362

were omitted from model mixture m-3 while myrcene, α-terpineol and hexanal were omitted

363

from the last model mixture, mixture m-4. Both model mixture m-3 and model mixture m-4 were

364

perceived as mandarin-like aroma. Therefore, α-pinene, limonene, octanal, linalool as well as

365

(E,E)-2,4-decadienal were determined as the most critical odorants to make the mandarin-like

366

aroma. However, for the mandarin model mixtures, there was a time limitation on the release of



367

aroma. The aroma of fresh prepared mixtures was perceived as mandarin-like, but quickly

368

changed as time passed. Further study is required to clarify this situation.

369

(E,E)-2,4-decadienal, always described as deep fried, oily notes, has been found as a key

370

aroma-active odorant in mandarin juice/oil with high odor activity. The threshold of (E,E)-2,4-

371

decadienal in water was reported ranging from 0.07-0.2 µg/L, which makes it easy to be

372

perceived but hard to be detected. In this study, (E,E)-2,4-decadienal was observed as an

373

indispensable component in mandarin-like aroma. Linalool was added into the mandarin model

374

mixture as the most abundant, as well as the most aroma-active, volatile. From chiral analysis,

375

(S)-(+)-linalool was predominant (95.2%) in mandarin juice, which should contribute a more

376

citrusy fruity note compared to the (R)-(-)-linalool. α-Pinene and limonene are two terpenes

377

contributing citrus-like, pungent aromas. α-Pinene was described as piney, citrus-peel-like while

378

limonene contributed most of the citrus-like, minty notes. Meanwhile, limonene was also one of

379

the most abundant compositions in mandarin, yet with a relatively high sensory threshold. It has

380

been reported that measurements of the stability of limonene and linalool will help with the

381

quality control of mandarin juice. 53-54 Octanal, showed as an important contributor to orange

382

aroma, but also showed great importance to mandarin-like aroma.

383

Comparing essential odorants for orange aroma and mandarin aroma, ethyl butanoate and

384

acetaldehyde stood out as characteristic contributors to fresh orange aroma while linalool and

385

(E,E)-2,4-decadienal seemed to be potent components for mandarin aroma. Aldehydes like

386

octanal could be important for aroma of both orange and mandarin while terpenes were critical

387

for mandarin aroma. Current literature does not define a simple and standardized

388

orange/mandarin aroma. The perception of orange/mandarin aroma seems due to the synergistic

389

effect of several key odorants instead of a characteristic volatile. However, even for the essential


Page 18 of 34

Page 19 of 34


390

odor-active compounds, their contents in citrus fruits vary largely among different varieties and

391

even among fruits from the same variety, but harvested under different conditions (season, year,

392

location, etc.). Meanwhile, orange/mandarin fruits from different varieties may have distinct

393

aromas but still, are perceived and described as orange/mandarin. These facts lead to the

394

hypothesis that the overall perception/impression of orange/mandarin aroma in the human brain

395

remains the same as long as all the key odorants are within a relatively flexible range with

396

respect to each other to maintain a balance. This could be supported by an early study in which

397

the dependence of perceived odor quality on odorant concentration was assessed with the

398

conclusion that variations in olfactory stimulus might be perceived as quality differences.55 The

399

principles underlying the recognition of olfactory stimuli for mammals are complicated and not

400

fully understood.56 The main olfactory system (MOS) is a broadly tuned odor sensor that

401

responds to thousands of volatile chemicals.57 Within MOS, olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs)

402

and main olfactory bulb (MOB) are critical components that are involved in odorant detection.

403

Odors are encoded using a combinatorial strategy since most OSNs can respond to multiple

404

odorants while multiple olfactory receptors recognize the same odorant.57-59 It is believed that

405

odorants initiate distinct spatial activity patterns in the glomerular layer of the olfactory bulb

406

while evoking the perception of distinct odors.60-61 In a study focusing on the mechanism

407

whereby odorants are encoded in the nervous system,62 changes in odorant concentrations for

408

certain compounds, but not others, were illustrated to affect spatial patterns of glomerular

409

activity as well as perceived odor. Due to the complex mechanism of odor perception, the

410

chemical formula for orange/mandarin aroma may fall into a dynamic range with potent odorants,

411

and not necessarily maintained as a single format. Therefore, to decode the differences between

412

orange and mandarin, understanding of the key odorants representing each fruit is the key step.



413

AEDA is a useful tool to screen out the most odor-active compounds in a juice sample, that then

414

require further investigation and quantitation. However, high FD factor does not guarantee the

415

importance of the volatiles’ contribution to the overall aroma. Matrix influence on odorants can

416

significantly change the perception of juice flavor from headspace due to unclear molecular

417

interactions of aroma compounds within the juice sample, e.g., matrix constituents may repress

418

or promote certain aroma notes. On the other hand, synergistic effects, as well as antagonistic

419

effects, among volatile compounds also exist, possibly influencing the release of certain odorants.

420

Therefore, aroma recombination analysis is necessary to verify the analytical data and more

421

importantly, to display the real-time perception of model mixture aroma in its entirety. In

422

addition to the accuracy of quantitation of key odorants, the choice of model matrix is also

423

critical due to its direct influence on the aroma release.

424

This study provided a preliminary understanding of the characteristic flavors of orange

425

and mandarin, as well as their differences. However, there were still limitations in this study and

426

further comprehensive investigation is strongly desired. Future emphasis should be on studying

427

additional citrus varieties, and the aroma compound thresholds should also be measured in

428

corresponding juice matrix. Moreover, dynamic olfactometery could be applied to study the level

429

range of key odorants that characterize orange/mandarin aroma.

430

Acknowledgment

431

We thank Laura Reuss (CREC, UF) for editing the manuscript.

432

Associated Content

433

Supporting information

434

The precisions and accuracies of aroma quantitation in fruit juices (PDF).


Page 20 of 34

Page 21 of 34


References 1.

Hinterholzer, A.; Schieberle, P. Identification of the most odour-active volatiles in fresh,

hand-extracted juice of Valencia late oranges by odour dilution techniques. Flavour Fragr J. 1998, 13, 49-55. 2.

Buettner, A.; Schieberle, P. Evaluation of aroma differences between hand-squeezed

juices from Valencia late and Navel oranges by quantitation of key odorants and flavor reconstitution experiments. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 2387-2394. 3.

Yu, Q.; Xie, B.-J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, H.-Y.; Pan, S.-Y. Study on aroma components in

fruit from three different Satsuma mandarin varieties. Agric. Sci. China. 2007, 6, 1487-1493. 4.

Tietel, Z.; Plotto, A.; Fallik, E.; Lewinsohn, E.; Porat, R. Taste and aroma of fresh and

stored mandarins. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011, 91, 14-23. 5.

Jagoueix, S.; Bové, J. M.; Garnier, M. PCR detection of the two «Candidatus»

liberobacter species associated with greening disease of citrus. Mol Cell Probes. 1996, 10, 43-50. 6.

Mall, V.; Schieberle, P. Evaluation of key aroma compounds in processed prawns

(whiteleg shrimp) by quantitation and aroma recombination experiments. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 2776-2783. 7.

Schmidberger, P., Schieberle, P. Characterization of the key aroma compounds in white

Alba truffle (Tuber magnatum pico) and Burgundy truffle (Tuber uncinatum) by means of the sensomics approach. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 9287-9296. 8.

Lawless, H.; Heymann, H. Similarity, equivalence testing, and discrimination theory.

In Sensory evaluation of food; Springer New York: 2010; 101-123. 9.

Xiao, Z., Wu, Q., Niu, Y., Wu, M., Zhu, J., Zhou, X., ... & Kong, J. Characterization of

the key aroma compounds in five varieties of mandarins by gas chromatography–olfactometry, 21 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


odor activity values, aroma recombination, and omission analysis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 8392-8401. 10.

Feng, S., Huang, M., Crane, J.H. and Wang, Y., Characterization of key aroma-active

compounds in lychee (Litchi chinensis Sonn.). J. Food Drug Anal. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfda.2017.07.013. 11.

Engel, W.; Bahr, W.; Schieberle, P. Solvent assisted flavour evaporation – a new and

versatile technique for the careful and direct isolation of aroma compounds from complex food matrices. Eur Food Res Technol. 1999, 209, 237-241. 12.

Small, D. M.; Prescott, J. Odor/taste integration and the perception of flavor. Exp Brain

Res. 2005, 166, 345-357. 13.

Auvray, M.; Spence, C. The multisensory perception of flavor. Conscious Cogn. 2008,

17, 1016-1031. 14.

Spence, C. Multi-sensory integration and the psychophysics of flavour perception. In

Food Oral Processing: Fundamentals of Eating and Sensory Perception; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, New Jersey, 2012; pp 203-224. 15.

Dalton, P.; Doolittle, N.; Nagata, H.; Breslin, P. The merging of the senses: integration of

subthreshold taste and smell. Nat. Neurosci. 2000, 3, 431. 16.

Breslin, P.; Doolittle, N.; Dalton, P. Subthreshold integration of taste and smell: the role

of experience in flavor integration. Chem Senses. 2001, 26, 1035. 17.

Delwiche, J. The impact of perceptual interactions on perceived flavor. Food Qual

Prefer. 2004, 15, 137-146. 18.

Stevenson, R. J.; Tomiczek, C. Olfactory-induced synesthesias: a review and model.

Psychol. Bull. 2007, 133, 294.


Page 22 of 34

Page 23 of 34


19.

Grosch, W. Detection of potent odorants in foods by aroma extract dilution analysis.

Trends Food Sci Tech. 1993, 4, 68-73. 20.

Wang, J.; Gambetta, J. M.; Jeffery, D. W. Comprehensive study of volatile compounds in

two Australian rosé wines: aroma extract dilution analysis (AEDA) of extracts prepared using solvent-assisted flavor evaporation (SAFE) or headspace solid-phase extraction (HS-SPE). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 3838-3848. 21.

Pang, X.; Cao, J.; Wang, D.; Qiu, J.; Kong, F. Identification of ginger (Zingiber officinale

Roscoe) volatiles and localization of aroma-active constituents by GC–olfactometry. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 4140-4145. 22.

Sha, S.; Chen, S.; Qian, M. C.; Wang, C. C.; Xu, Y. Characterization of the typical potent

odorants in Chinese roasted sesame-like flavor type liquor by headspace solid phase microextraction-aroma extract dilution analysis, with special emphasis on sulfur-containing odorants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 65, 123-131. 23.

Selli, S.; Kelebek, H. Aromatic profile and odour-activity value of blood orange juices

obtained from Moro and Sanguinello (Citrus sinensis L. Osbeck). Ind Crops and Prod. 2011, 33, 727-733. 24.

Qiao, Y.; Xie, B. J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Fan, G.; Yao, X. L.; Pan, S. Y.

Characterization of aroma active compounds in fruit juice and peel oil of Jinchen sweet orange fruit (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck) by GC-MS and GC-O. Molecules 2008, 13, 1333-1344. 25.

Högnadóttir, Á.; Rouseff, R. L. Identification of aroma active compounds in orange

essence oil using gas chromatography–olfactometry and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A. 2003, 998, 201-211.



26.

Perez-Cacho, P. R.; Rouseff, R. L. Fresh squeezed orange juice odor: a review. Crit. Rev.

Food Sci. Nutr. 2008, 48, 681-695. 27.

Miyazaki, T.; Plotto, A.; Baldwin, E. A.; Reyes-De-Corcuera, J. I.; Gmitter Jr, F. G.

Aroma characterization of tangerine hybrids by gas-chromatography-olfactometry and sensory evaluation. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2012, 92, 727-735. 28.

Miyazawa, N.; Fujita, A.; Kubota, K. Aroma character impact compounds in Kinokuni

mandarin orange (Citrus kinokuni) compared with Satsuma mandarin orange (Citrus unshiu). Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2010, 74, 835-842. 29.

Buettner, A.; Mestres, M.; Fischer, A.; Guasch, J.; Schieberle, P. Evaluation of the most

odour-active compounds in the peel oil of clementines (Citrus reticulata Blanco cv. clementine). Eur Food Res Technol. 2003, 216, 11-14. 30.

Choi, H.-S. Characteristic odor components of kumquat (Fortunella japonica Swingle)

peel oil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53, 1642-1647. 31.

Huang, M.; Valim, M.; Feng, S.; Reuss, L.; Yao, L.; Gmitter, F.; Wang, Y.

Characterization of the major aroma-active compounds in peel oil of an HLB-tolerant mandarin hybrid using aroma extraction dilution analysis and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry/olfactometry. Chemosens Percept. 2017, 1-9. 32.

Moshonas, M. G.; Shaw, P. E. Quantitation of volatile constituents in mandarin juices

and its use for comparison with orange juices by multivariate analysis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1997, 45, 3968-3972. 33.

Goldenberg, L.; Yaniv, Y.; Doron‐Faigenboim, A.; Carmi, N.; Porat, R. Diversity among

mandarin varieties and natural sub‐groups in aroma volatiles compositions. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 96, 57-65.


Page 24 of 34

Page 25 of 34


34.

Miyazaki, T.; Plotto, A.; Goodner, K.; Gmitter, F. G. Distribution of aroma volatile

compounds in tangerine hybrids and proposed inheritance. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011, 91, 449-460. 35.

González-Mas, M. C.; Rambla, J. L.; Alamar, M. C.; Gutiérrez, A.; Granell, A.

Comparative analysis of the volatile fraction of fruit juice from different citrus species. PLoS One. 2011, 6, e22016. 36.

Cotroneo, A.; Stagno d'Alcontres, I.; Trozzi, A. On the genuineness of citrus essential

oils. Part XXXIV. Detection of added reconstituted bergamot oil in genuine bergamot essential oil by high resolution gas chromatography with chiral capillary columns. Flavour Fragr J. 1992, 7, 15-17. 37.

Kreis, P.; Braunsdorf, R.; Dietrich, A.; Hener, U.; Maas, B.; Mosandl, A.

Enantioselective analysis of linalool-scope and limitations. In Progress in Flavour Precursor Studies, Analysis, Generation,Biotechnology; Schreier, P., Winterhalter, P., Eds.; Alluree Publ. Corp: 1993; pp 77-82. 38.

Fahlbusch, K. G.; Hammerschmidt, F. J.; Panten, J.; Pickenhagen, W.; Schatkowski, D.;

Bauer, K.; Garbe, D.; Surburg, H. Flavors and fragrances. In Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2003. 39.

Boelens, M. H.; Boelens, H.; van Gemert, L. J. Sensory properties of optical isomers.

Perfum Flavor. 1993, 18, 1-16. 40.

Padrayuttawat, A.; Yoshizawa, T.; Tamura, H.; Tokunaga, T. Optical isomers and odor

thresholds of volatile constituents in Citrus sudachi. Food Sci. Technol. Int, Tokyo. 1997, 3, 402408. 41.

Davis, P. L. Further studies of ethanol and acetaldehyde in juice of citrus fruits during the

growing season and during storage. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 1971, 84, 217-222.



42.

Davis, P. L. Relation of ethanol content of citrus fruits to maturity and to storage

conditions. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 1970, 83, 294-298. 43.

Cohen, E.; Shalom, Y.; Rosenberger, I. Postharvest ethanol buildup and off-flavor

inMurcott'tangerine fruits. J Amn Soc Hortic Sci. 1990, 115, 775-778. 44.

Ahmed, E. M.; Dennison, R. A.; Dougherty, R. H.; Shaw, P. E. Flavor and odor

thresholds in water of selected orange juice components. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1978, 26, 187191. 45.

Kirchner, J.; Miller, J. M. Canning and storage effects, volatile water-soluble and oil

constituents of valencia orange juice. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1957, 5, 283-291. 46.

Moshonas, M. G.; Shaw, P. E. Quantitative determination of 46 volatile constituents in

fresh, unpasteurized orange juices using dynamic headspace gas chromatography. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1994, 42, 1525-1528. 47.

Takeoka, G. R.; Buttery, R. G.; Flath, R. A. Volatile constituents of Asian pear (Pyrus

serotina). J. Agric. Food Chem. 1992, 40, 1925-1929. 48.

Takeoka, G.; Buttery, R. G.; Flath, R. A.; Teranishi, R.; Wheeler, E.; Wieczorek, R.;

Guentert, M. Volatile constituents of pineapple (Ananas comosus [L.] Merr.). In Flavor chemistry; ACS Publications: 1989; 223-237. 49.

Nisperos-Carriedo, M. O.; Shaw, P. E. Comparison of volatile flavor components in fresh

and processed orange juices. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1990, 38, 1048-1052. 50.

Perez-Cacho, P. R.; Rouseff, R. Processing and storage effects on orange juice aroma: a

review. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 9785-9796. 51.

Shaw, P. Fruits ii. In Volatile compounds in foods and beverages; Marcel Dekker: 1991.


Page 26 of 34

Page 27 of 34


52.

Czerny, M.; Christlbauer, M.; Christlbauer, M.; Fischer, A.; Granvogl, M.; Hammer, M.;

Hartl, C.; Hernandez, N. M.; Schieberle, P. Re-investigation on odour thresholds of key food aroma compounds and development of an aroma language based on odour qualities of defined aqueous odorant solutions. Eur Food Res Technol. 2008, 228, 265-273. 53.

Pérez-López, A. J.; Saura, D.; Lorente, J.; Carbonell-Barrachina, Á. A. Limonene,

linalool, α-terpineol, and terpinen-4-ol as quality control parameters in mandarin juice processing. Eur Food Res Technol. 2006, 222, 281-285. 54.

Pérez-López, A. J.; Carbonell-Barrachina, Á. A. Volatile odour components and sensory

quality of fresh and processed mandarin juices. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2006, 86, 2404-2411. 55.

Gross-Isseroff, R.; Lancet, D. Concentration-dependent changes of perceived odor

quality. Chem Senses. 1988, 13, 191-204. 56.

Munger, S. D.; Leinders-Zufall, T.; Zufall, F. Subsystem organization of the mammalian

sense of smell. Annu Rev Physiol. 2009, 71, 115-140. 57.

Firestein, S. How the olfactory system makes sense of scents. Nature. 2001, 413, 211.

58.

Malnic, B.; Hirono, J.; Sato, T.; Buck, L. B. Combinatorial receptor codes for odors. Cell.

1999, 96, 713-723. 59.

Mombaerts, P. Genes and ligands for odorant, vomeronasal and taste receptors. Nature

Rev Neurosci. 2004, 5, 263-278. 60.

Johnson, B. A.; Woo, C. C.; Leon, M. Spatial coding of odorant features in the

glomerular layer of the rat olfactory bulb. J. Comp. Neurol. 1998, 393, 457-471. 61.

Johnson, B. A.; Woo, C. C.; Hingco, E. E.; Pham, K. L.; Leon, M. Multidimensional

chemotopic responses to n‐aliphatic acid odorants in the rat olfactory bulb. J. Comp. Neurol. 1999, 409, 529-548.



62.

Johnson, B. A.; Leon, M. Modular representations of odorants in the glomerular layer of

the rat olfactory bulb and the effects of stimulus concentration. J. Comp. Neurol. 2000, 422, 496509. 63.

Pang, X.; Guo, X.; Qin, Z.; Yao, Y.; Hu, X.; Wu, J. Identification of aroma-active

compounds in Jiashi muskmelon juice by GC-O-MS and OAV calculation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 4179-4185. 64.

Tamura, H.; Yang, R.-H.; Sugisawa, H. Aroma profiles of peel oils of acid citrus. In

Bioactive volatile compounds from plants; ACS Publications: 1993; 121-136. 65.

Sun, H.; Ni, H.; Yang, Y.; Wu, L.; Cai, H.-n.; Xiao, A.-f.; Chen, F. Investigation of

sunlight-induced deterioration of aroma of pummelo (Citrus maxima) essential oil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 11818-11830. 66.

Buttery, R. G.; Teranishi, R.; Ling, L. C.; Turnbaugh, J. G. Quantitative and sensory

studies on tomato paste volatiles. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1990, 38, 336-340. 67.

Van Gemert, L. Compilations of Odour Threshold Values in Air, Water and Other Media;

2003. 68.

Plotto, A.; Margaría, C. A.; Goodner, K. L.; Goodrich, R.; Baldwin, E. A. Odour and

ﬂavour thresholds for key aroma components in an orange juice matrix: terpenes and aldehydes. Flavour Fragr J. 2004, 19, 491-498. 69.

Bogdanov, S.; Kilchenmann, V.; Fluri, P.; Bühler, U.; Lavanchy, P. Influence of organic

acids and components of essential oils on honey taste. Am Bee J. 1999, 139, 61-63


Page 28 of 34

Page 29 of 34


Figure Captions Figure 1. Chromatogram of enantiomeric analysis on limonene and linalool in Valencia juice.



Page 30 of 34

Table 1. The Most Odor-Active Volatiles in the Juices of Valencia Orange and LB8-9 Mandarin. no.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

odorantb ethyl acetate ethyl propanoate α-pinene ethyl butanoate ethyl 2-methylbutanoate hexanal (Z)-3-hexenal myrcene limonene β-phellandreneg ethyl hexanoate γ-terpinene octanal 1-octen-3-one 6-methyl-5-heptene-2-one 1-hexanol 4-mercapto-4-methylpentan-2-onef nonanal (E)-2-octenal ethyl octanoate 1-octen-3-ol methionalf citronellal α-copaeneg decanal (E)-2-nonenal linalool β-elemene D-carvone perillaldehyde β-damascenonef geraniol perilla acetateg

odor qualityc fruity fruity citrus peel fruity fruity grassy grassy mossy, musty citrus-like, minty terpeny fruity pine tree citrus-like, soapy mushroom sweet, green resin, paper blackcurrant citrus-like floral fruity nutty, earthy cooked potato minty, citrus-like herbal, green green, citrus-like floral floral green sweet, herbal green sweet, syrup floral green

a

RId (FFAP) 873 918 983 1003 1024 1052 1117 1131 1168 1174 1208 1214 1261 1274 1310 1326 1343 1363 1399 1404 1421 1427 1444 1447 1467 1504 1517 1551 1698 1749 1790 1823 1866

FD factore Valencia LB8-9 1

Differentiation between Flavors of Sweet Orange (Citrus

Recommend Documents