Chemical characterization of odour-active volatile compounds during lucuma (Pouteria lucuma) fruit ripening

Figures & data

Figure 1. Lucuma (Pouteria lucuma) fruit in ripe stage. Image credit: Marianela Inga.

Figura 1. Fruta de lucuma (Pouteria lucuma) en estado maduro.

Table 1. Physicochemical characterization of lucuma (Pouteria lucuma) fruit pulp at two ripening stages.

Tabla 1. Caracterización fisicoquímica de la pulpa de lucuma (P. lucuma) en los dos estados de madurez.

Property	Unripe	Ripe
% Titratable acidity (g citric acid/100 g dry matter)	0.76 ± 0.13^a	0.47 ± 0.03^b
pH	5.99 ± 0.14^a	5.51 ± 0.04^b
Total soluble solids (°Brix)	15.98 ± 1.64^a	22.17 ± 2.76^b

All data are the mean of three measurements ± standard deviation. Different letters in a file means that there are significant differences based on T-test (p ≤ 0.05).

Todos los datos son el promedio de tres medidas ± desviación estándar. Letras diferentes en una fila significa que existen diferencias significativas basadas en el T-test (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 2. Odour-active volatiles identified in SAFE extracts of unripe and ripe Pouteria lucuma fruits.

Tabla 2. Compuestos volátiles activos olfativamente detectados en los extractos obtenidos por SAFE a partir de frutos inmaduros y maduros de Pouteria lucuma.

			RI^e			Concentration ± SD (% CV) (μg kg^−1 fresh fruit)^f
No.^a	Compound	Odour description^d	FFAP	HP-5	Response Factor	Unripe	Ripe	Odour threshold (μg kg^−1 water)	OAV^p
1	2,3-Butanedione^b	Sweet, butter, lucuma-like	991	–	0.4417	4256.3 ± 896.5 (21.1)^g	7312.0 ± 2024.0 (27.6)^h	5.4^i	1354
2	(Z)-3-Hexenal^b	Green, grassy	1148	800	0.9442	79.4 ± 7.5 (9.4)^g	164.2 ± 2.9 (1.8)^h	0.25^i	657
3	(E)-2-Hexenal^b	Green, fruity	1240	906	0.4571	168.9 ± 24.7 (14.6)^g	1673.6 ± 554.1 (33.1)^h	17^i	98
4	(Z)-β-Ocimene^b	Sweet, herbal	1268	1023	0.9823	422.0 ± 93.5 (22.1)^g	778.8 ± 179.9 (23.1)^h	34^j	23
5	4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone^b	Minty, sweet	1361	900	0.9343	2863.1 ± 946.3 (33.0)^g	2092.5 ± 302.3 (14.5)^h	64000^k	0.03
6	2-Acetoxy-3-butanone^c	Toasted, sweet	1397	887	–	75.3 ± 1.5 (2.0)^g	248.6 ± 53.2 (21.4)^h	–	–
7	Methional^b	Cooked potato	1432	926	0.9220	–	244.0 ± 25.4 (10.4)	0.2^i	1220
8	Acetic acid^b	Vinegar	1445	–	0.8678	218.9 ± 65.2 (29.7)^g	40,452.9 ± 705.1 (1.7)^h	99000^k	0.41
9	4-methyl-2-oxo-pentanoic acid^c	Floral	1487	–	–	–	–	–	–
10	Ethyl 3-hydroxy-butanoate^b	Fresh, fruity	1525	<1000	0.9772	–	225.1 ± 3.4 (1.5)	14000^l	0.02
11	2-Methyl-propanoic acid^b	Plastic	1571	–	0.9153	98.3 ± 30.9 (31.4)^g	469.8 ± 98.9 (21.0)^h	8100^i	0.06
12	Butanoic acid^b	Rancid, butter	1611	–	0.9070	–	413.5 ± 153.1 (37.0)	2400^m	0.17
13	3-Methyl butanoic acid^b	Fruity, sweaty, toasted	1659	–	0.9676	468.6 ± 7.8 (1.7)^g	310.0 ± 134.3 (43.3)^h	250^n	1.24
14	Hexanoic acid^b	Rancid, sweaty	1853	–	0.9278	100.4 ± 4.7 (4.7) ^g	409.6 ± 42.7 (10.4)	3000^i	0.14
15	(3E)-Hexenoic acid^b	Green, rancid	1952	999	0.9284	99.2 ± 3.2 (3.2)^g	231.6 ± 68.5 (29.6)^h	1300°	0.18
16	δ-Octalactone^b	Coconut-like, creamy	2009	1281	0.8868	–	231.2 ± 6.2 (2.7)	400^i	0.58

^aOdorants were numbered according to their retention time on FFAP column.

^bOdorants were identified by comparing their retention indices on the FFAP and HP-5 column, their mass spectra, and their odour notes (detected by GC-O) with respective data of reference compounds.

^cOdorants were identified by comparing their mass spectrum and/or retention indexes with literature data (database NIST/EPA/NIH Mass Spectral Library 2014 (2.2)).

^dOdour note as perceived at the sniffing port during GC–O analysis.

^eRetention index.

^fAll data are the mean of three measurements ± standard deviation. In all of the cases, correlation coefficient was higher than 0.975. Different letters (g, h) in a file means that there are significant differences based on Tukey test (p ≤ 0.05).

ⁱLeffingwell and Associates (2008).

^jTamura, Boonbumrung, Yoshizawa, and Varanyanond (2001).

^kPubChem Open Chemistry Database (2019).

^lLytra, Cameleyre, Tempere, and Barbe (2015).

^mCzerny et al. (2008).

ⁿ Buttery, Teranishi, Ling, and Turnbaugh (1990).

^oKishimoto, Wanikawa, Kono, and Shibata (2006).

^pOAV = odour activity value, concentration of volatile compounds in ripe fruit divided by their odour threshold.

-Not determined.

^aLos odorantes se enumeraron de acuerdo con su tiempo de retención en columna FFAP.

^bLos odorantes se identificaron por comparación de sus índices de retención en columnas FFAP y HP-5, sus espectros de masas y sus notas de olor (detectadas por GC-O), con los respectivos de compuestos de referencia.

^cLos odorantes se identificaron por comparación de sus espectros de masas y/o índices de retención con los datos reportados en la literatura (base de datos NIST/EPA/NIH Mass Spectral Library 2014 (2.2))

^dNota de olor percibida en el puerto de olfacción durante los análisis por GC-O.

^eIndice de retención

^fTodos los datos son el promedio de tres medidas ± desviación estándar. En todos los casos, el coeficiente de correlación fue mayor que 0.975. Letras diferentes (g, h) en una fila significa que existen diferencias significativas basadas en la prueba de Tukey (p ? 0.05).

ⁱLeffingwell & Associates, (2008).

^jTamura, Boonbumrung, Yoshizawa, & Varanyanond, (2001).

^kPubChem Open Chemistry Database, (2019).

^lLytra, Cameleyre, Tempere, & Barbe, (2015).

^mCzerny et al., (2008).

ⁿButtery, Teranishi, Ling, & Turnbaugh, (1990).

^oKishimoto, Wanikawa, Kono, & Shibata, (2006).

^pOAV = Odour Activity Value, concentración de un compuesto volátil en la fruta madura, dividad por su valor umbral de olor.

-Not determined.

Figure 2. GC and AEDA analyses on FFAP column of odour-active compounds from Pouteria lucuma ripe fruit obtained by SAFE extract. Peak numbers correspond to the compound numbers in Table 2.

Figura 2. Análisis por CG y AEDA en columna FFAP de los compuestos activos olfativamente en la fruta madura de Pouteria lucuma obtenidos a partir del extracto SAFE. Los números de los picos corresponden con los números de los compuestos en la Tabla 2.

Figure 3. Odour-active compound amount in unripe and ripe Pouteria lucuma fruits. Different letters in amount of each kind of compounds means significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) among two ripening stages.

Figura 3. Cantidad de compuestos activos olfativamente en frutas inmaduras y maduras de Pouteria lucuma. Letras diferentes en la cantidad de cada clase de compuestos indica que hay diferencias significativas (p ≤ 0.05) entre los dos estados de madurez.

Leffingwell & Associates. (2008). Odor & flavor detection thresholds in water (In parts per billion). Retrieved from http://www.leffingwell.com/odorthre.htm

 Google Scholar

Tamura, H., Boonbumrung, S., Yoshizawa, T., & Varanyanond, W. (2001). The volatile constituents in the peel and pulp of a green Thai mango, Khieo Sawoei cultivar (Mangifera indica L.). Food Science and Technology Research, 7, 72–77.

 Google Scholar

PubChem Open Chemistry Database. (2019). Retrieved from https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 Google Scholar

Lytra, G., Cameleyre, M., Tempere, S., & Barbe, J.-C. (2015). Distribution and organoleptic impact of ethyl 3-hydroxybutanoate enantiomers in wine. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 63, 10484–10491.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Czerny, M., Christlbauer, M., Christlbauer, M., Fischer, A., Granvogl, M., Hammer, M., … Schieberle, P. (2008). 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. European Food Research Technology, 228, 265–273.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Buttery, R. G., Teranishi, R., Ling, L. C., & Turnbaugh, J. G. (1990). Quantitative and sensory studies on tomato paste volatiles. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 38, 336–340.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kishimoto, T., Wanikawa, A., Kono, K., & Shibata, K. (2006). Comparison of the odor-active compounds in unhopped beer and beers hopped with different hop varieties. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 54, 8855–8861.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar