Next Article in Journal
Drug Design, Synthesis and Biological Evaluation of Heterocyclic Molecules as Anti-Inflammatory Agents
Previous Article in Journal
Sm0.5Sr0.5Co1−xNixO3−δ—A Novel Bifunctional Electrocatalyst for Oxygen Reduction/Evolution Reactions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Molecules
Volume 27
Issue 4
10.3390/molecules27041264
molecules-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparative Study on Volatile Compounds and Taste Components of Different Durian Cultivars Based on GC-MS, UHPLC, HPAEC-PAD, E-Tongue and E-Nose

by
Zuobing Xiao
1,2,
Minxing Niu
1 and
Yunwei Niu
1,*
1
Shanghai Institute of Technology, School of Perfume and Aroma Technology, Shanghai 201418, China
2
School of Agriculture and Biology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2022, 27(4), 1264; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27041264
Submission received: 8 January 2022 / Revised: 8 February 2022 / Accepted: 9 February 2022 / Published: 14 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Topic Applied Sciences in Functional Foods)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In order to comprehensively evaluate the aroma-active substances and taste components of durian, solid-phase microextraction combined with gas chromatography mass spectrometry (SPME/GC-MS), high-performance anion-exchange chromatography with pulsed amperometric detection (HPAEC-PAD) and ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) were used to test the key components of three popular durian cultivars. A total of 27 volatile compounds, 5 sugars, 27 organic acids and 19 free amino acids were detected in Black Thorn (BT) durian. A total of 38 volatile compounds, 4 sugars, 27 organic acids and 19 free amino acids were detected in Monthong (MT) durian. A total of 36 volatile compounds, 4 sugars, 27 organic acids and 20 free amino acids were detected in Musang King (MK) durian. Finally, the flavor differences of the three durians were evaluated using electronic nose (e-nose) and electronic tongue (e-tongue), and different cultivars were classified through principal component analysis (PCA).

1. Introduction

Durian (Durio zibethinus Murr.) belongs to the Malvaceae family and is one of the most economically important fruits in Southeast Asia. Thailand and Malaysia are important producing areas of durian. MT is one of the well-known durian cultivars grown commercially in Thailand [1]. The output of durian in 2019 exceeded one million tons, and it is exported mainly to China and the world market [2]. Malaysia is also an important producer and exporter of durian and is second only to Thailand in terms of output and export value. MT and MK are well-known durian cultivars in Malaysia, with a high degree of commercial cultivation, and their unique smell and creamy flavor are deeply loved by consumers [3]. The prices of the three durians are significantly different (BT > MK > MT). To sum up, three different durians were selected for research based on price and popularity.
The quality of fruits is often determined by multiple factors, such as color, texture, aroma and taste. Most of the previous papers studied aroma compounds and taste components separately. In fact, however, taste and aroma influence each other. Oladokun et al. [4] found that the aroma of hops can significantly affect the taste of beer. The bitterness and astringency of beer with the aroma of Hersbrucker hop were significantly enhanced. Arvisenet et al. [5] found that sugar and acid in a certain concentration range can enhance the aroma of wine. The aroma components and taste components in durian could influence each other, creating the unique aroma and taste of durian. Li et al. [6,7] identified 44 aroma-active substances of MT durian through solvent-assisted flavor evaporation (SAFE) combined with GC-MS. Through stable isotope dilution analysis (SIDA) combined with threshold values, they found that ethyl 2-methylbutyrate and ethyl mercaptan had high odor activity values (OAV). Yi et al. [3] identified 23 volatile compounds in BT and 24 volatile compounds in MK through SPME combined with GC-MS. Three sugars and six organic acids were identified by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) combined with mass spectrometry. Pinsorn et al. [1] used capillary electrophoresis time-of-flight mass spectrometry (CE-TOF/MS) to study the metabolites of durian pulp flavor, such as amino acids. They found that the metabolite profiles of durian from different cultivars were significantly different, which may be an important reason for the difference in durian flavor.
In this paper, SPME was used to extract the aroma-active substances in durian. A total of 27, 38 and 36 volatile compounds were detected in BT, MT and MK, respectively. SPME is widely used in fruit aroma extraction, because it is fast, simple and solvent-free. HPAEC-PAD was used to determine sugar content in durian pulp. This method optimizes the analysis process and shortens the analysis time compared with HPLC [8]. A total of five, four and four sugars were detected in BT, MT and MK, respectively. UHPLC was used to determine the organic acids and amino acids in durian pulp with higher sensitivity and shorter analysis time than traditional HPLC [9]. A total of 27 organic acids and 20 free amino acids were detected in the three durians (except for the lack of L-Tryptophan in BT).
The purpose of this study is to detect aroma-active components and taste components of three durian cultivars, qualitatively and quantitatively, combined with e-nose and e-tongue to evaluate their flavor differences. This work aims at providing a reference for establishing a rapid and comprehensive analysis for durian aroma components and taste components, and at applying it to durian-flavored food. Theoretical bases for the aroma and taste improvement of durian-flavored foods are provided in this paper.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

In this study, 49 volatile compounds were detected in three durian cultivars, including 22 ester compounds, 13 sulfur compounds, 6 alcohol compounds, 3 ketone compounds, 3 aldehyde compounds and 2 olefin compounds. As shown in Table 1, a total of 27, 38 and 36 compounds were detected in BT, MT and MK, respectively. Methyl 2-methyl butyrate, ethyl 2-methyl butyrate, propyl 2-methyl butyrate, hexyl hexanoate, methyl octanoate and propyl tiglate existed in all durian cultivars. Propyl 2-methyl butyrate (1818.42 μg/kg) was the most abundant ester compound in BT durian, and it was also the characteristic ester of Chanee durian [10]. It has also been found in sea buckthorn [11] and apple [12], and has aromas of wine, apple and pineapple. The ester compound with the highest content in MT and MK was ethyl 2-methyl butyrate, whose contents were 11,680.31 μg/kg and 14,484.20 μg/kg, respectively. Ethyl 2-methyl butyrate has been described as a tropical fruit aroma and it is a key component of the aroma of durian [7]. Ethyl propionate, ethyl (Z)-2-crotonate and hexyl 2-methyl butyrate were only detected in BT. Ethyl acetate, diethyl carbonate, ethyl butyrate, hexyl formate and ethyl valerate were only detected in MT, which may be one of the reasons for the differences in the aroma of different durian cultivars.
Ethyl mercaptan, methyl ethyl disulfide, diethyl disulfide, methyl propyl disulfide, dipropyl disulfide, diethyl trisulfide, 3,5-dimethyl-1,2,4-trithiolane and acetaldehyde diethyl mercaptal were detected in all durian cultivars. Diethyl disulfide was the most abundant sulfur-containing compound in all three durian cultivars, and was 17,777.04 μg/kg, 8665.01 μg/kg and 27,253.26 μg/kg in BT, MT and MK, respectively. Diethyl disulfide is usually described as the smell of onion or garlic, and it was transformed from the less stable ethyl mercaptan and propyl mercaptan [13]. 3,5-dimethyl-1,2,4-trithiolane and acetaldehyde diethyl mercaptal are widespread in many durian cultivars. They are rare in other fruits, but they are important aroma compounds in durian. Methyl ethyl sulfide, S-ethyl thioacetate and dipropyl sulfide were only detected in MK, which may be one of the reasons for the differences in aroma of different durian cultivars.
Diacetyl and acetoin are important aroma compounds in durian as well as in cheese, butter, yogurt and butter [14], and have been described as the smell of milky and sweet flavor. It is worth mentioning that heptanal (71.22 μg/kg) and 1-octanal (81.84 μg/kg) were only detected in MT. Heptanal has a grassy aroma, and has also been detected in persimmon and melon [15,16]. Octanal has the aroma of citrus and orange, and is the main aroma compound in citrus [17]. The difference in aroma components between different durian cultivars may be caused by the differences in variety and growth environment. The light time temperatures during the day and at night and the rainfall during the growth stage may cause the differences in contents and types of the final aroma compounds of durian [18].

2.2. Sugars, Organic Acids and Amino Acids of Durian Fruits

Sweetness is considered a key factor that determines the quality of fruit, and the taste of the fruit is directly affected by the sugar content [19]. Sweetness is also an index of fruit maturity, and sucrose, fructose and glucose play an important role at this stage [20]. For example, during the ripening process of green bananas, amylase- and sucrose-synthesis-related enzymes degrade starch into sucrose [21]. Sucrose is a substance that produces a sense of sweetness. Table 2 shows the content difference of glucose, fructose, maltose, ribose and sucrose in different durian cultivars. The concentration of sucrose in each durian variety is significantly higher than that of other sugars. The sucrose content of BT is about 2–5 times higher than that of the other two cultivars. The fructose and glucose contents of MK and MT are similar, while the contents of fructose and glucose of BT are the lowest. Traces of ribose (0.69 μg/mg) were also detected in BT, which is not found in the other two cultivars. The differences in the contents of glucose and fructose in different cultivars are caused by differences in the activities of related enzymes [22].
The contents of organic acids vary greatly in different varieties of fruits. Some organic acids in fruit pulp act as important precursor substances in certain metabolic pathways. Organic acids are also important flavor substances, and their contents affect the palatability of the fruits [23]. A total of 27 organic acids were detected in three durians. Malic acid, citric acid, tartaric acid, succinic acid, acetic acid and lactic acid are common organic acids in durian [24]. Table 2 shows the differences in the content of organic acids in different durian cultivars. Succinic acid is the organic acid with the highest content in the three durian cultivars, and the content in BT is the highest (11,453.95 ng/mg). In addition, among the 27 organic acids, malic acid, acetic acid, citric acid, maleic acid and propionic acid are predominant. These organic acid contents are beyond 1000 ng/mg, except for the propionic acid in MT which is 275.93 ng/mg. Although the content of tartaric acid is low (72.44–221.67 ng/mg), it has a better comprehensive taste performance than other organic acids such as citric acid in the interaction of sweet and sour [25]. Butyric acid, valeric acid, hexanoic acid and octanoic acid in durian have been detected by gas chromatography combined with mass spectrometry in the literature [26]. Quinic acid is the main organic acid in citrus fruits, and can account for 20–30% of the dry weight of the pulp [27]. Studies have shown that the concentration and types of organic acids affects the flavor and palatability of fruits [28].
Amino acid and its derivatives are important contributors to fruit flavor [29]. Table 2 summarizes the contents of 20 common amino acids. The contents of aspartic acids in the flesh of BT and MK were 6708.92 ng/mg and 4631.31 ng/mg, respectively, which were the highest concentrations compared with other amino acids. The free amino acid with the highest content in MT is alanine (6019.09 ng/mg). Among the 20 amino acids, alanine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid and leucine are predominant. These amino acid contents are beyond 2000 ng/mg, except for the leucine in MT, which is 1903.56 ng/mg. Free tryptophan was not detected in BT and MT, and the content in MK is extremely low (0.15 ng/mg). In previous research [30,31], amino acids were classified as sour (aspartic acid), sweet (alanine, glycine, serine and threonine), bitter (arginine, leucine, isoleucine, methionine and valine) and umami (glutamic acid) according to their contribution to the taste of durian. The remaining nine amino acids showed extremely mild taste or were tasteless. The contents of sweet amino acids, sour amino acid, bitter amino acids and umami amino acid in the flesh of BT were found to be 11,005.99 ng/mg, 6708.92 ng/mg, 3849.50 ng/mg and 6447.98 ng/mg, respectively, through calculations. In BT, the amino acid contents of the four types are higher than those of the other two cultivars. Meanwhile, some amino acids are also precursors of key aroma substances in fruits. For example, the methionine γ-lyase in durian converts methionine into methyl mercaptan, which is the key to the formation of durian characteristic odor [32].

2.3. E-Nose and E-Tongue Analyses

The e-nose is a high-precision instrument that can detect subtle differences in the volatile components of a sample [33]. In this study, the e-nose was used to analyze the comprehensive flavor characteristic of three durians. The response intensity of the electronic nose of volatile compounds depends not only on the type of compound, but also on the concentration. Figure 1a,b shows the radar images of the electronic nose under non-polar and polar column separation, respectively. The results show that the radar fingerprint chart of the aroma of the three durians almost overlapped and that the concentrations of some volatile compounds were different. The score plot of PCA of three physicochemical indexes of different cultivars is shown in Figure 2. The results were statistically analyzed using PCA. The variance contribution rates of the first and second PCs were 60.88% and 38.83%, respectively. The total variance in contribution of the first two PCs was 99.71%. The research showed that the total variance greater than 85% indicated a rigorous classification procedure. The higher the total variance, the more the principal component can reflect the information [34]. PCA results showed that the e-nose data were stable, and the three durians could be well separated. The values of the principal Component 1 of BT and MT were similar, which indicates that they had similar flavors.
As shown in Table 3, the major taste components of the three durians were detected using the e-tongue, and the sweetness, sourness and umami tastes were detected, respectively. The e-tongue results showed that the three durians have differences regarding the perception of sweetness and umami. The greater the signal intensity value of the e-tongue, the stronger of corresponding sense of taste people feel. The critical value of sourness was −13. Below this value sourness could not be sensed. In terms of sweetness, BT had the highest sweetness and MT had the lowest sweetness, which was consistent with the LC-MS data. The total sugar concentration of BT was 257.63 μg/mg, and the total sugar concentration of MT was 138.73 μg/mg. Considering that the sweetness of different sugars is different, the reason for this result may be that the sucrose content of the Black Thorn durian is much higher than that of the other two cultivars, which masks the sweetness effect. In terms of umami, MT had the highest umami, and BT had the lowest umami. It can be seen that the taste of durian varies according to origin and cultivar.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Materials

BT (D200) were purchased from a local orchard in Pulau Pinang, Penang (5.354° N, 100.273° E) in August 2021. MK (D197) were purchased from a local orchard in Raub, Pahang (3.512° N, 101.405° E) in October 2021. These two cultivars naturally fell off the trees onto the ground after 120 days’ growth and the fruits were frozen in liquid nitrogen immediately. MT were purchased from a local Internet shop. MT (D159) was the most common cultivar in the Thailand market. After being picked by hand, they were immediately stored in liquid nitrogen. All these fruits were transported via SF Express to the Shanghai Institute of Technology, Fengxian District, Shanghai City, Shanghai Province, China, and kept at 4 °C on the way. The durians without any visual defects or rotting were selected. Dehusked durians were packed in aluminum foil. After being frozen in liquid nitrogen, the durian pulp was placed into a zip-lock bag and stored in a −80 °C refrigerator in order to employ it in the subsequent experiments.

3.2. Chemicals

Ethanol, NaOH, glucose, fructose, ribose, sucrose, maltose, methanol, chloroform, 3-nitrophenylhydrazine, formic acid, acetonitrile, propionic acid, isobutyric acid, butyric acid, oxalic acid, lactic acid, valeric acid, isovaleric acid, Malonic acid, caproic acid, isocaproic acid, fumaric acid, maleic acid, succinic acid, benzoic acid, itaconic acid, glutaric acid, malic acid, salicylic acid, caprylic acid, adipic acid, tartaric acid, pimelic acid, shikimic acid Oxalic acid, citric acid, dl-isocitric acid, quinic acid, l-Alanine, l-Arginine, l-Asparagine, l-Aspartic acid, l-Cystine, l-Glutamic acid, l-Glutamine, Glycine, l-Histidine, l-Isoleucine, l-Leucine, l-Lysine, l-Methionine, l-Phenylalanine, l-Proline, l-Serine, l-Threonine, l-Tryptophan, l-Tyrosine, l-Valine and Thiophene were purchased from Shanghai Titan technology Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China). All reagents were analytical reagent (AR). A n-alkane (C6–C30) was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). Pure water was obtained from a Milli-Q purification system (IQ 7000, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany).

3.3. Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds

SPME was used to extract the aroma components from durian pulp. The experimental methods and instrument conditions were based on the literature and some optimizations were made [26]. A total of 5 g durian pulp, 3 mL deionized water, 1 g NaCl and 1 mL 10 mg/L thiophene were added to a 15 mL headspace bottle. The fiber coating (57328-U, SUPELCO, Bellefonte, PA, USA) type was carboxen/divinybenzene/polydimethylsiloxane (CAR/DVB/PDMS). The SPME syringe was inserted into the headspace bottle in a 30 °C water bath and the fiber coating exposed for 30 min. Finally, the SPME syringe was inserted into the GC injector for desorption for 5 min at 250 °C. GC–MS (7890 GC-5973C MSD, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) was used for identification of the durian volatile compounds. HP-Innowax and DB-5 columns (60 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) were used for dual-column analysis. The durian volatiles were separated under the following instrumental conditions: electron ionization voltage of 70 eV, helium as carrier gas at a constant flow of 2 mL/min, inlet temperature of 250 °C, ion source temperature of 230 °C and quadrupole temperature of 150 °C. The heating program was set as follows: the initial temperature was 40 °C which was held for 6 min, the temperature was increased to 100 °C at a rate of 3 °C/min and held for 2 min, and then to 230 °C at a rate of 10 °C/min and held for 20 min. The splitless mode was chosen. The quantification of the volatile compounds was conducted by comparing the peak areas of the detected volatile organic compounds to the peak area of internal standard thiophene. Different durian samples were studied using the same analysis methods and analysis conditions. The compounds were identified by matching retention times of authentic standards, retention indices (RIs), and mass spectra in the NIST 17 database. The RIs of unknown compounds were determined by alkanes (C6−C30). The parallel experiments were performed three times.

3.4. Determination of Sugar Contents

HPAEC-PAD was used to determine the sugar content in durian pulp. The experimental methods and instrument conditions were based on the literature and some optimizations were made [8]. A total of 100 mg of durian pulp was accurately weighed in a 2.0 mL centrifuge tube and 700 μL 80% ethanol was added to the centrifuge tube. The sample was shaken for 2 h at 50 °C and diluted with 700 μL deionized water. Subsequently, the sample was centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 3 min. Finally, the supernatant was transferred to a new centrifuge tube and the processed sample solution was diluted 100 times. Ion chromatography (ICS 5000, Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) used CarboPacTM PAI (50 × 4.0 mm) liquid chromatography column. The mobile phase A was H2O and B was 100 mM NaOH. The injection volume was 5 μL and the flow rate was 0.5 mL/min. The column temperature was 30 °C and the elution gradient was as follows: 0 min A phase/B phase (95:5 v/v), 9 min A phase/B phase (95:5 v/v), 20 min A phase/B phase (0:100 v/v), 30 min A phase/B phase (0:100 v/v), 30.1 min A phase/B phase (95:5 v/v), 40 min A phase/B phase (95:5 v/v), 60 min A Phase/B phase (95:5 v/v). Different durian samples were studied using the same analysis methods and analysis conditions. The standard stock solution of galactose, fructose, ribose, sucrose and maltose were prepared by following concentration gradients of 0.5 μg/mL, 1 μg/mL, 5 μg/mL, 10 μg/mL, 20 μg/mL, 30 μg/mL, 40 μg/mL and 50 μg/mL. According to the calibration curve, the concentrations of glucose, fructose, ribose, sucrose and maltose in the durian sample were calculated. The software Chromeleon 7.2 (Waltham, MA, USA, 2012) was used for chromatographic data processing. Three parallel determinations were performed under the same conditions.

3.5. Determination of Organic Acid Contents

A Thermo Vanquish Flex UHPLC (Thermo Scientific, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) equipped with a Q-Exactive hybrid quadrupole-orbitrap mass spectrometer (Thermo Scientific, San Jose, CA, USA) was used to analyze the organic acid content in durian pulp. The experimental methods and instrument conditions were based on the literature and some optimizations were made [35]. A total of 100 mg of durian pulp was accurately weighed in a 2.0 mL centrifuge tube, and 300 μL extraction solution (methanol: chloroform = 7:3) was added to the centrifuge tube. The solution was mixed thoroughly and left to stand for about 30 min in an ice bath. A total of 200 μL of deionized water was added to the system and mixed thoroughly. The mixture was centrifuged at 12,000 rpm for 10 min at 4 °C, and the supernatant was collected. The centrifugation process was repeated once. After centrifugation, 40 μL of the mixture was mixed with 10 μL of 0.1M 3-nitrophenylhydrazine (3-NPH) at 40 °C for 30 min of incubation to complete the sample derivatization [36]. Finally, the processed sample solution was diluted 10 times. Separation of organic acid was performed on a UHPLC system equipped with a Waters BEH C18 Column (2.1 mm × 50 mm, 1.8 μm particle size). The column oven temperature was set to 40 °C. The mobile phase A was water/0.1% formic acid, and the mobile phase B was ACN/0.1% formic acid. The flow rate was 0.35 mL/min, and the injection volume was 2 μL. The elution gradient was as follows: 0.0 min A/B (90:10 v/v), 2.0 min A/B (90:10 v/v), 12.0 min A/B (10:90 v/v), 14.0 min A/B (10:90 v/v), 14.1 min A/B (90:10 v/v) and 16.0 min A/B (90:10 v/v). The UHPLC system was coupled to MS equipped with electrospray ionization (ESI) and the MS conditions were as follows: sheath gas flow rate 40 arb, auxiliary gas flow rate 10 arb, ion spray voltage −2800 V at 350 °C, ion transfer tube temperature 320 °C. The scan mode was Fullms −ms2 negative ion. Different durian samples were studied using the same analysis methods and analysis conditions. The standard stock solution of propionic acid, isobutyric acid, butyric acid, oxalic acid, (S)-lactic acid, valeric acid, isovaleric acid, malonic acid, hexanoic acid, 4-methylvaleric acid, fumaric acid, maleic acid, succinic acid, benzoic acid, itaconic acid, glutaric acid, d-(+)-Malic acid, salicylic acid, octanoic acid, adipic acid, d-(−)-Tartaric acid, pimelic acid, shikimic acid, citric acid, dl -isocitricacid and d-(−)-quinic acid were prepared by following concentration gradients of 1 ng/mL, 10 ng/mL, 100 ng/mL, 500 ng/mL, 1000 ng/mL, 5000 ng/mL, 10,000 ng/mL and 20,000 ng/mL, and calibration curves were constructed. According to the calibration curve, the concentration of organic acids in the durian sample were calculated. The chemical standard derivatization method was the same as the sample derivatization method. The software TraceFinder (5.1, San Jose, CA, USA, 2019) was used for data processing. Three parallel determinations were performed under the same conditions.

3.6. Determination of Free Amino Acids Contents

A Thermo Vanquish Flex UHPLC (Thermo Scientific, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) equipped with a Q-Exactive hybrid quadrupole-orbitrap mass spectrometer (Thermo Scientific, San Jose, CA, USA) was used to analyze the free amino acids in durian pulp. The experimental methods and instrument conditions were based on the literature and some optimizations were made [37,38,39]. The pre-column AQC (6-aminoquinolyl-N-hydroxysuccinimidyl carbamate) derivatization of amino acids was accomplished using the Waters AccQ·FluorTM (Waters Corporation, Milford, MA, USA) kit. The derivatization of AccQ·Fluor reagent, the derivatization of amino acid standard samples, the construction of the external standard calibration curve and the derivatization of the durian sample (50 mg) were strictly performed in accordance with instruction manual from Waters (Waters AccQ Tag Chemistry Package Instruction Manual, Revision 1). The processed sample solution was diluted nine times. Separation of amino acids was performed on a UHPLC system equipped with a Waters BEH C18 Column (2.1 mm × 50 mm, 1.7 μm particle size). The column oven temperature was set to 55 °C. The mobile phase A was water/0.1% formic acid, and the mobile phase B was ACN/0.1% formic acid. The flow rate was 0.35 mL/min, and the injection volume was 1 μL. The elution gradient was as follows: 0.0 min A/B (95:5 v/v), 5.5 min A/B (90:10 v/v), 7.7 min A/B (75:25 v/v), 8.0 min A/B (40:60 v/v), 8.5 min A/B (95:5 v/v) and 13.0 min A/B (95:5 v/v). The UHPLC system was coupled to MS equipped with electrospray ionization (ESI) and the MS conditions were as follows: sheath gas flow rate 40 arb, auxiliary gas flow rate 10 arb, ion spray voltage + 3000 V at 350 °C, ion transfer tube temperature 320 °C. The scan mode was single ion detection (SIM). Different durian samples were studied using the same analysis methods and analysis conditions. The software TraceFinder (5.1, San Jose, CA, USA, 2019) was used for data processing. Three parallel determinations were performed under the same conditions.

3.7. E-Tongue Analysis

The e-tongue (TS-5000Z, Insent Company, Fukuoka ken, Japan) was used to analyze the taste components of the three durians. Sensor CA0, AAE and Gl1 were used to detect sourness, umami and sweetness taste. The experimental instrument settings and experimental methods referred to the previous literature [40]. A total of 5 g durian pulp and 40 mL deionized water were added to a 50 mL centrifuge tube. The mixture was filtered with refrigerated centrifuge (4 °C, 8000 rpm, 10 min), and 30 mL of the supernatant was taken for detecting. The parallel experiments were performed four times.

3.8. Electronic Nose Analysis

The electronic nose (Alpha MOS, Toulouse, France) was used to quickly identify the aroma of durian. The parameter settings of the instrument refer to the literature [41]. The method of extracting durian pulp aroma was the same as the method for SPME above. The parallel experiments were performed three times.

4. Conclusions

This study systematically investigated the volatile compounds and taste components of durians (BT, MT and MK). The types of organic acids and free amino acids in the three durians are almost the same, but the content of each substance is not the same. The number of volatile compounds in BT is less than that in the other two cultivars, but the total sugar content is higher than in the other two cultivars. The results of e-nose, e-tongue and PCA can effectively distinguish different durians. The evaluation results are in good agreement with the LC-MS data. Compared with an artificial sensory system, they are quick and objective evaluation methods. These results provide evidence for the flavor formation mechanisms of different durians, which need to be further studied. The volatile aroma compounds, organic acids, sugars and amino acids of durian have a significant impact on the quality and popularity of durian.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.N.; methodology, M.N.; software, M.N.; validation, Z.X.; formal analysis, Y.N.; investigation, Z.X.; resources, M.N.; data curation, M.N.; writing—original draft preparation, M.N.; writing—review and editing, Y.N.; visualization, Y.N.; supervision, Z.X.; project administration, Z.X.; funding acquisition, Z.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [31972196], Capacity building project of local universities Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality [21010503900] and Program of Shanghai Academic Research Leader [21XD1423800].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable for studies not involving humans or animals.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to sensitivity.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Zhang Xiao from Shiyanjia Lab www.shiyanjia.com (accessed on 7 January 2022) for technical support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Sample Availability

Samples of the compounds are available from the authors.

References

  1. Pinsorn, P.; Oikawa, A.; Watanabe, M.; Sasaki, R.; Ngamchuachit, P.; Hoefgen, R.; Saito, K.; Sirikantaramas, S. Metabolic variation in the pulps of two durian cultivars: Unraveling the metabolites that contribute to the flavor. Food Chem. 2018, 268, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Rueangrit, P.; Jatuporn, C.; Suvanvihok, V.; Wanaset, A. Forecasting Production and Export of Thailand’s Durian Fruit: An Empirical Study using the Box–Jenkins Approach. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Lett. 2020, 8, 430–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tan, X.Y.; Misran, A.; Cheong, K.W.; Daim, L.D.J.; Ding, P.; Dek, M.S.P. Postharvest quality indices of different durian clones at ripening stage and their volatile organic compounds. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 264, 109169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Oladokun, O.; James, S.; Cowley, T.; Dehrmann, F.; Smart, K.; Hort, J.; Cook, D. Perceived bitterness character of beer in relation to hop variety and the impact of hop aroma. Food Chem. 2017, 230, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Niimi, J.; Eddy, A.I.; Overington, A.R.; Heenan, S.P.; Silcock, P.; Bremer, P.J.; Delahunty, C.M. Aroma–taste interactions between a model cheese aroma and five basic tastes in solution. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 31, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Li, J.-X.; Schieberle, P.; Steinhaus, M. Characterization of the Major Odor-Active Compounds in Thai Durian (Durio zibethinus L. ‘Monthong’) by Aroma Extract Dilution Analysis and Headspace Gas Chromatography-Olfactometry. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 11253–11262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Li, J.-X.; Schieberle, P.; Steinhaus, M. Insights into the Key Compounds of Durian (Durio zibethinus L. ‘Monthong’) Pulp Odor by Odorant Quantitation and Aroma Simulation Experiments. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 639–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lin, H.; Li, S.; Xu, C.; Pang, M.; Wang, S. Simultaneous determination of galactose, glucose, lactose and galactooligosaccharides in galactooligosaccharides raw materials by high-performance anion-exchange chromatography with pulsed amperometric detection. Food Chem. 2018, 263, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yang, L.; Zhai, Y.; Chen, X.; Zhang, Z.; Gong, X.; Zhou, D.; Kong, J.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, Q.; Niu, C.; et al. Rapid identification of chemical compositions in callicarpa kwangtungensis Chun by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography with Q Exactive hybrid quadrupole orbitrap high-resolution accurate mass spectrometry. J. Sep. Sci. 2020, 43, 2487–2494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Aschariyaphotha, W.; Wongs-Aree, C.; Bodhipadma, K.; Noichinda, S. Fruit Volatile Fingerprints Characterized among Four Commercial Cultivars of Thai Durian (Durio zibethinus). J. Food Qual. 2021, 2021, 1383927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tiitinen, K.; Hakala, M.; Kallio, H. Headspace volatiles from frozen berries of sea buckthorn (Hippophaë rhamnoides L.) varieties. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2006, 223, 455–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lee, Y.-Y.; Jeong, M.-C.; Jang, H.W. Determination of volatile compounds by headspace-solid phase microextraction-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry: Quality evaluation of Fuji apple. Anal. Sci. Technol. 2017, 30, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Chin, S.; Nazimah, S.; Quek, S.-Y.; Man, Y.C.; Rahman, R.A.; Hashim, D.M. Analysis of volatile compounds from Malaysian durians (Durio zibethinus) using headspace SPME coupled to fast GC-MS. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2007, 20, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Clark, S.; Winter, C.K. Diacetyl in Foods: A Review of Safety and Sensory Characteristics. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2015, 14, 634–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Besada, C.; Sanchez, G.; Salvador, A.; Granell, A. Volatile compounds associated to the loss of astringency in persimmon fruit revealed by untargeted GC–MS analysis. Metabolomics 2012, 9, 157–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gong, D.; Bi, Y.; Li, S.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y. Trichothecium roseum infection promotes ripening of harvested muskmelon fruits and induces the release of specific volatile compound. J. Plant Pathol. 2019, 101, 529–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Song, H.S.; Phi, N.T.L.; Sawamura, M. Volatile Profile of the Peel Oil of Kiyomi (Citrus unshiu Marcov. x C. sinensis Osbeck), A New Hybrid Sweet Citrus Fruit. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2009, 21, 26–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mattheis, J.P.; Fellman, J.K. Preharvest factors influencing flavor of fresh fruit and vegetables. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 1999, 15, 227–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lee, P.; Tan, R.; Yu, B.; Curran, P.; Liu, S. Sugars, organic acids, and phenolic acids of exotic seasonable tropical fruits. Nutr. Food Sci. 2013, 43, 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gomez, M.; Lajolo, F.; Cordenunsi, B. Evolution of Soluble Sugars during Ripening of Papaya Fruit and its Relation to Sweet Taste. J. Food Sci. 2002, 67, 442–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cordenunsi, B.R.; Lajolo, F.M. Starch Breakdown during Banana Ripening: Sucrose Synthase and Sucrose Phosphate Synthase. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1995, 43, 347–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Liu, J.; Guo, S.; He, H.; Zhang, H.; Gong, G.; Ren, Y.; Xu, Y. Dynamic characteristics of sugar accumulation and related enzyme activities in sweet and non-sweet watermelon fruits. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2013, 35, 3213–3222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Walker, R.P.; Famiani, F. Organic acids in fruits: Metabolism, functions and contents. Hortic. Rev. 2018, 45, 371–430. [Google Scholar]
  24. Voon, Y.; Hamid, N.S.A.; Rusul, G.; Osman, A.; Quek, S.-Y. Characterisation of Malaysian durian (Durio zibethinus Murr.) cultivars: Relationship of physicochemical and flavour properties with sensory properties. Food Chem. 2007, 103, 1217–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Junge, J.Y.; Bertelsen, A.S.; Mielby, L.A.; Zeng, Y.; Sun, Y.-X.; Byrne, D.V.; Kidmose, U. Taste Interactions between Sweetness of Sucrose and Sourness of Citric and Tartaric Acid among Chinese and Danish Consumers. Foods 2020, 9, 1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Belgis, M.; Wijaya, C.H.; Apriyantono, A.; Kusbiantoro, B.; Yuliana, N.D. Volatiles and aroma characterization of several lai (Durio kutejensis) and durian (Durio zibethinus) cultivars grown in Indonesia. Sci. Hortic. 2017, 220, 291–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Albertini, M.-V.; Carcouet, E.; Pailly, O.; Gambotti, C.; Luro, F.; Berti, L. Changes in Organic Acids and Sugars during Early Stages of Development of Acidic and Acidless Citrus Fruit. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 8335–8339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Campbell, C.; Koch, K. Sugar/acid composition and development of sweet and tart carambola fruit. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1989, 114, 455–457. [Google Scholar]
  29. Tieman, D.; Taylor, M.; Schauer, N.; Fernie, A.R.; Hanson, A.D.; Klee, H.J. Tomato aromatic amino acid decarboxylases participate in synthesis of the flavor volatiles 2-phenylethanol and 2-phenylacetaldehyde. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 8287–8292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Shiraishi, M.; Fujishima, H.; Chijiwa, H. Evaluation of table grape genetic resources for sugar, organic acid, and amino acid composition of berries. Euphytica 2009, 174, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jiang, W.-D.; Wu, P.; Tang, R.-J.; Liu, Y.; Kuang, S.-Y.; Jiang, J.; Tang, L.; Tang, W.-N.; Zhang, Y.-A.; Zhou, X.-Q.; et al. Nutritive values, flavor amino acids, healthcare fatty acids and flesh quality improved by manganese referring to up-regulating the antioxidant capacity and signaling molecules TOR and Nrf2 in the muscle of fish. Food Res. Int. 2016, 89 Pt 1 Pt 1, 670–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fischer, N.S.; Steinhaus, M. Identification of an Important Odorant Precursor in Durian: First Evidence of Ethionine in Plants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 10397–10402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Yang, W.; Yu, J.; Pei, F.; Mariga, A.M.; Ma, N.; Fang, Y.; Hu, Q. Effect of hot air drying on volatile compounds of Flammulina velutipes detected by HS-SPME–GC–MS and electronic nose. Food Chem. 2016, 196, 860–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Liu, M.; Wang, J.; Li, D.; Wang, M. Electronic tongue coupled with physicochemical analysis for the recognition of orange beverages. J. Food Qual. 2012, 35, 429–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wang, Y.-Q.; Hu, L.-P.; Liu, G.-M.; Zhang, D.-S.; He, H.-J. Evaluation of the Nutritional Quality of Chinese Kale (Brassica alboglabra Bailey) Using UHPLC-Quadrupole-Orbitrap MS/MS-Based Metabolomics. Molecules 2017, 22, 1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Han, J.; Gagnon, S.; Eckle, T.; Borchers, C.H. Metabolomic analysis of key central carbon metabolism carboxylic acids as their 3-nitrophenylhydrazones by UPLC/ESI-MS. Electrophoresis 2013, 34, 2891–2900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Mayer, H.K.; Fiechter, G. Application of UHPLC for the determination of free amino acids in different cheese varieties. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2013, 405, 8053–8061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Feng, P.; Gao, M.; Burgher, A.; Zhou, T.H.; Pramuk, K. A nine-country study of the protein content and amino acid composition of mature human milk. Food Nutr. Res. 2016, 60, 31042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Kaspar, H.; Dettmer, K.; Gronwald, W.; Oefner, P.J. Advances in amino acid analysis. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2009, 393, 445–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhu, D.; Ren, X.; Wei, L.; Cao, X.; Ge, Y.; Liu, H.; Li, J. Collaborative analysis on difference of apple fruits flavour using electronic nose and electronic tongue. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 260, 108879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Niu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Xiao, Z.; Zhu, J. Evaluation of the Perceptual Interactions Between Higher Alcohols and Off-Odor Acids in Laimao Baijiu by sigma-tau Plot and Partition Coefficient. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 14938–14949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Molecules 27 01264 g001 550
Figure 1. Radar map of electronic nose. (a) the radar map of the electronic nose under non-polar separation. (b) the radar map of the electronic nose under polar column separation.
Figure 1. Radar map of electronic nose. (a) the radar map of the electronic nose under non-polar separation. (b) the radar map of the electronic nose under polar column separation.
Molecules 27 01264 g001
Molecules 27 01264 g002 550
Figure 2. PCA of e-nose data.
Figure 2. PCA of e-nose data.
Molecules 27 01264 g002
Table
Table 1. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of volatile compounds in durian pulp.
Table 1. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of volatile compounds in durian pulp.
No.CompoundCASRIIdentification cConcentration (μg/kg)
HP-Innowax aDB-5 bBlack ThornRSD d (%)MonthongRSD (%)Musang KingRSD (%)
1ethyl mercaptan75-08-1756<600St RI MS364.1712.801617.9813.633125.347.76
2propyl mercaptan107-03-9835<600St RI MS174.2813.99--218.549.92
3ethyl methyl sulfide624-89-5856612St RI MS----2389.159.11
4ethyl acetate141-78-6873<600St RI MS--1722.751.53--
5ethyl propionate105-37-3950681St RI MS61.4312.48----
6ethyl isobutyrate97-62-1962740St RI MS--1014.013.51341.156.90
7diacetyl431-03-8988<600St RI MS--2075.812.051537.339.54
82-pentanone107-87-9988662St RI MS--74.6510.80--
9methyl 2-methyl butyrate868-57-51009762St RI MS146.054.21468.652.76964.961.81
10ethyl butyrate105-54-41021785St RI MS--559.8013.00--
11propyl alcohol71-23-81038<600St RI MS1012.226.322456.3113.883739.345.41
12ethyl 2-methyl butyrate7452-79-11053834St RI MS1722.958.1011,680.315.2614,484.2011.36
13dipropyl sulfide111-47-71076879St RI MS----20.856.60
14S-ethyl thioacetate625-60-51095755St RI MS----74.3910.03
15diethyl carbonate105-58-81105766St RI MS--564.512.67--
16methyl (E)-2-butenoate623-43-81109746St RI MS--83.905.9537.584.26
17ethyl valerate539-82-21126880St RI MS--163.792.88--
18propyl 2-methyl butyrate37064-20-31131931St RI MS1818.4211.661137.258.182880.987.66
19ethyl methyl disulfide20333-39-51148816St RI MS124.346.91526.518.961191.536.72
20ethyl (Z)-crotonate6776-19-81150754St RI MS108.136.61----
21propyl isovalerate557-00-61152933St RI MS43.4413.13146.974.65--
22butyl alcohol71-36-31154653St RI MS--631.7413.29305.871.89
23heptanal111-71-71171882St RI MS--71.2213.91--
24(E)-methyl tiglate6622-76-01180858St RI MS37.6811.6249.2010.28--
25dextro-limonene5989-27-511961015St RI MS--72.904.5240.0613.11
262-methyl-1-butanol137-32-61201725St RI MS290.2612.07990.663.33--
27isoamyl alcohol123-51-31203721St RI MS--550.315.711637.925.67
28diethyl disulfide110-81-61212907St RI MS17,777.043.008665.0110.5227,253.2611.76
29methyl propyl disulfide2179-60-41221917St RI MS155.989.20102.437.21159.365.87
30ethyl hexanoate123-66-01226979St RI MS355.5610.661527.064.70352.275.51
31(E)-ethyl tiglate5837-78-51228925St RI MS430.377.21--204.049.78
32amyl alcohol71-41-01239750St RI MS--63.276.2079.4810.65
331-octanal124-13-01281984St RI MS--81.848.97--
34acetoin513-86-01283691St RI MS--1240.9111.11655.793.72
35propyl tiglate61692-83-913311028St RI MS262.852.3274.172.9928.185.02
36hexyl formate629-33-41350901St RI MS--264.438.94--
37hexanol111-27-31363851St RI MS106.543.80--505.162.31
38dipropyl disulfide629-19-613671101St RI MS538.1511.8661.254.07511.462.68
39methyl octanoate111-11-513811113St RI MS53.808.18110.436.7043.229.04
40nonanal124-19-613921088St RI MS--106.208.03121.5010.17
41hexyl 2-methyl butyrate10032-15-214311227St RI MS29.0613.46----
42ethyl octanoate106-32-114411178St RI MS265.372.84860.813.19173.156.34
43diethyl trisulfide3600-24-615201134St RI MS2514.783.461013.7113.493203.4711.51
443-hydroxybutyric acid ethyl ester5405-41-41524923St RI MS--409.988.7564.707.23
453,5-dimethyl-1,2,4-trithiolane23654-92-415991126St RI MS336.1711.02167.211.33264.363.39
46beta-caryophyllene87-44-516051408St RI MS----20.871.37
47ethyl decanoate110-38-316491380St RI MS--57.827.8719.0811.35
48dipropyl trisulfide6028-61-117121319St RI MS49.088.33--37.579.64
49acetaldehyde diethyl mercaptal14252-42-722231317St RI MS343.8312.5620.5510.32889.766.23
a Retention index of compounds on the HP-Innowax. b Retention index of compounds on the DB-5. c RI: retention index; Std: authentic standards; MS: mass spectrometry. d RSD: relative standard deviation.
Table
Table 2. Sugar, organic acid, and amino acid contents of three durian cultivars.
Table 2. Sugar, organic acid, and amino acid contents of three durian cultivars.
AttributesDurian Cultivars
Black ThornRSD a (%)Musang KingRSD (%)MonthongRSD (%)
Sugar (μg/mg)
Glucose10.491.134.261.9030.911.46
Fructose10.050.549.451.5943.701.27
Ribose0.695.03----
Sucrose235.340.89111.531.1757.260.96
Maltose1.061.0320.761.286.870.34
Organic acid (ng/mg)
Propionic acid2210.564.991109.354.13275.931.84
Isobutyric acid49.831.358.181.7329.481.62
Butyric acid117.972.5177.013.1349.842.91
Oxalic acid798.032.42263.261.59389.031.49
lactic acid34.224.4641.640.64369.252.97
Valeric acid5.174.285.360.193.232.71
Isovaleric acid87.384.0826.750.6930.244.22
Malonic acid14.452.6929.831.958.400.45
Hexanoic Acid55.523.0045.530.8138.580.03
4-Methylvaleric Acid61.590.1751.664.1643.262.03
Fumaric acid260.762.06444.801.17281.581.40
Maleic acid1316.303.832245.440.131420.474.87
Succinic acid11,453.953.108442.832.794681.370.26
Benzoic acid4.230.7610.103.416.750.86
Itaconic acid1.063.370.154.090.250.17
Glutaric Acid94.264.58103.234.6158.342.30
Malic acid3888.950.485986.802.054180.523.70
Salicylic acid1.044.430.824.810.672.53
Octanoic Acid27.022.8730.161.1435.950.79
Adipic acid42.660.87202.740.9824.350.32
Tartaric acid72.441.57125.451.19221.674.27
Pimelic Acid39.892.9640.513.4344.090.62
Shikimic Acid28.110.5729.002.0964.062.14
Citric acid4875.132.581141.721.521897.570.55
Isocitricacid212.970.1247.385.6272.813.86
Quinic acid99.100.324.082.8543.121.91
Acetic acid2934.751.225490.224.123521.152.18
Amino acids (ng/mg)
l-Alanine6451.552.453897.171.436019.093.94
l-Arginine1526.991.551267.242.231108.341.63
l-Asparagine65.713.6239.831.9742.863.73
l-Aspartic acid6708.925.744634.312.473884.031.36
l-Cystine87.473.61104.662.2963.880.66
l-Glutamic acid3849.502.243462.460.343040.480.93
l-Glutamine0.992.710.753.681.913.59
Glycine1796.680.601617.870.441506.774.59
l-Histidine615.194.47520.961.53460.744.86
l-Isoleucine1186.121.831189.703.011109.901.83
l-Leucine2156.674.032137.241.641903.562.98
l-Lysine1614.670.261446.720.921381.042.77
l-Methionine54.183.4963.622.3038.233.03
l-Phenylalanine1454.204.511243.401.341093.011.76
l-Proline1699.470.721499.983.211440.280.12
l-Serine1580.291.101390.381.871305.952.57
l-Threonine1177.472.201130.761.711016.174.58
l-Tryptophan--0.154.26--
l-Tyrosine875.933.41721.992.11654.024.29
l-Valine1524.033.461454.920.311354.352.19
a RSD, relative standard deviation.
Table
Table 3. Electronic tongue results of samples.
Table 3. Electronic tongue results of samples.
Black ThornRSD a (%)Musang KingRSD (%)MonthongRSD (%)
Sweetness22.330.4822.030.5121.020.59
Sourness−25.042.13−26.262.52−26.392.02
Umami10.881.0211.340.8111.520.69
a RSD, relative standard deviation.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xiao, Z.; Niu, M.; Niu, Y. Comparative Study on Volatile Compounds and Taste Components of Different Durian Cultivars Based on GC-MS, UHPLC, HPAEC-PAD, E-Tongue and E-Nose. Molecules 2022, 27, 1264. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27041264

AMA Style

Xiao Z, Niu M, Niu Y. Comparative Study on Volatile Compounds and Taste Components of Different Durian Cultivars Based on GC-MS, UHPLC, HPAEC-PAD, E-Tongue and E-Nose. Molecules. 2022; 27(4):1264. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27041264

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xiao, Zuobing, Minxing Niu, and Yunwei Niu. 2022. "Comparative Study on Volatile Compounds and Taste Components of Different Durian Cultivars Based on GC-MS, UHPLC, HPAEC-PAD, E-Tongue and E-Nose" Molecules 27, no. 4: 1264. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27041264

APA Style

Xiao, Z., Niu, M., & Niu, Y. (2022). Comparative Study on Volatile Compounds and Taste Components of Different Durian Cultivars Based on GC-MS, UHPLC, HPAEC-PAD, E-Tongue and E-Nose. Molecules, 27(4), 1264. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27041264

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop