Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Food Science & Nutrition logoLink to Food Science & Nutrition
. 2024 May 6;12(7):4810–4818. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.4128

Effect of jujube powder addition on the aroma profile of quinoa snacks (QS)

Jianxin Song 1,✉, Jiayi Liu 1, Kaile Wang 1, Lei Gao 1, Xiaodong Wang 2,✉, Jian Peng 3,✉, Ning Wang 4
PMCID: PMC11266901  PMID: 39055212

Abstract

Quinoa is a full‐nutrition food; however, its poor flavor and small size make it not the best food option for direct consumption. In this study, a quinoa snack (QS, a cake) was developed, and the aroma profile of the products was improved by adding jujube fruit powder (made from dried jujube fruits, from 5% to 30%). Gas chromatography mass spectrum (GC–MS) combined with electronic nose (e‐nose) was applied for characterizing the aroma profiles of QS samples. Results showed a total of 26 aroma compounds were identified in QS samples by GC–MS, and 3‐methylbutanol (from 1525 μg/kg in QS‐30 to 3487 μg/kg in QS‐0), ethanol (from 1126 μg/kg in QS‐0 to 3581 μg/kg in QS‐30), hexanal (from 125.6 μg/kg in QS‐30 to 984.1 μg/kg in QS‐0), and acetaldehyde (from 531.9 μg/kg in QS‐30 to 191.1 μg/kg in QS‐0) were common. The e‐nose response of W1S (sensitive to methane, from 17.50 of QS‐0 to 93.85 of QS‐30) and W1W (sensitive to sulfur‐organic compounds of e‐nose, from 15.57 of QS‐0 to 39.50 of QS‐30) were significantly higher, and significant differences were presented among QS samples. In conclusion, the aroma profile of the QS sample was significantly (p < .05) enhanced by the addition of jujube powder, and QS‐30 with the highest jujube content (30%) presented the strongest aroma profile. Moreover, QS samples with different additions of jujube powders could be well distinguished by principal component analysis (PCA), and the combination of e‐nose and GC–MS was effective in the volatile profile analysis of QS samples.

Keywords: aroma profile, e‐nose, GC–MS, jujube powder, quinoa

3‐Methylbutanol, ethanol, hexanal, and 2‐methylpropanol were common in quinoa snack (QS) samples. The aroma profile of QS sample was significantly enhanced by the addition of jujube powder. QS‐30 with the highest jujube content (30%) presented the strongest aroma profile. QS samples with different additions of jujube powders could be well distinguished by PCA.

graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g028.jpg

1. INTRODUCTION

Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) is a plant species belonging to the Chenopodiaceae family. As a pseudo‐cereal, quinoa is native to the Andes region, which has a 7000‐year agricultural history (Pearsall, 1992; Song & Tang, 2023). Quinoa has the ability to resist extreme ecological pressures such as high altitude, significant temperature fluctuations, humidity varieties, and pH changes in the soil (Castro et al., 2019; Song, Shao, et al., 2021; Song, Yan, et al., 2021). Quinoa has a balanced amino acid profile, and it is also rich in carbohydrates, protein, and dietary and many functional compositions such as polyphenols, vitamins, saponins, and flavonoids (Chaudhary et al., 2023; Ren et al., 2023). The functional effects of antioxidant, anti‐inflammatory, antidiabetic and antimicrobial activities of quinoa were excellent (Navruz‐Varli & Şanlier, 2016; Shahidi & Chandrasekara, 2013; Starzyńska‐Janiszewska et al., 2023). Hence, quinoa has been recognized as a full‐nutrition food that can provide all the nutrients for the human body by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (Niu et al., 2023). In daily life, quinoa is commonly processed as salad, bread, biscuits, and cakes (Sezgin & Sanlier, 2019). However, due to its small size, which is covered with chaff, and the light smell and bitter taste caused by saponin, quinoa seed is not the best food option for direct consumption (Cao et al., 2023). Appropriate auxiliary materials need to be added to enhance the flavor quality of quinoa products.

Jujube (Ziziphus jujuba Mill.), also known as the red or Chinese date, is a favorite fruit with a unique flavor. In daily life, about 90% of jujubes are consumed in dried form (Song et al., 2020). Jujube powder is one of the major products of dried jujubes (Addo et al., 2019). The dried jujube presents a strong and unique flavor. Volatile compositions such as alcohols, aldehydes, acids, esters, and ketones are abundant in dried jujubes, especially for acids (such as hexanoic acid and octanoic acid) with a sour cheese or fatty smell that make a major contribution to the jujube flavor profile (Song et al., 2020, 2022). Hence, jujube powder is mostly used as an added ingredient in various foods such as bread, milk, and tea (Chen et al., 2014; Liu & Zhao, 2009).

Snacks, such as small packaged cakes, are a series of ready‐to‐eat foods that can meet the demands of flavor, nutrients, and food enjoyment for consumers. Hence, flavor is a key factor that determines the quality and acceptance of snack products. The aim of this study was to developed a baked snack (quinoa snack, QS) mainly made from quinoa. The jujube powder was added to enhance the flavor quality of QS, and the optimum jujube powder content (5%–30%) was investigated based on the aroma profile of QS as well.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Material

A total of 5.0 kg of white quinoas (cultivated in Zhuluke Town, Chaoyang, Liaoning Province of China) produced by a process factory (Huaizhi Grain Co., Ltd.) were purchased. All quinoa samples were vacuum packed and stored at 4°C. Inulin (1.0 kg) produced by Henan Wan Bang Industrial Co., Ltd. was obtained. Jujubes of the Huizao variety (5.0 kg) cultivated in Ruoqiang Town, Xinjiang Province, China, were collected. Strong wheat flour (5.0 kg) produced by Wudeli Flour Group with the standard Q/WDL00165 was used. Instant dry yeast (5 g*10) from Angel was applied for fermentation.

2.2. Sample preparation

2.2.1. Jujube powder preparation

The jujube fruits were cleaned with running water, and the jujube seeds were removed by a special seed remover (304 stainless steel, KACHEEG, Germany). Then the fruit was cut into 5.0 mm slices and treated with hot‐air drying equipment (DHG‐9123, Jing Hong Laboratory Instruments Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) at 60°C for 6.0 h. The dried jujube samples were pulverized (JYL‐CO20, Joyoung, Jinan, China), and the powders were passed through an 80‐mesh/inch sieve (Song et al., 2020).

2.2.2. Quinoa flour preparation

About 500 g of quinoa was soaked in 1.5 L of drinking water for 5 h. Then the quinoa sample was manually scrubbed for saponin removal. After being drip‐dried, the quinoa sample was dried at 60°C for 6 h, and then milled and passed through an 80‐mesh/inch sieve.

2.2.3. QS preparation

According to our previous optimizing experiments, the ratio of quinoa to strong wheat flour was 1:1, the content of inulin was 6%, and the instant dry yeast was added with a 5 g/1000 g sample according to the instruction. The variables of jujube powder were 0% (QS‐0), 5% (QS‐5), 10% (QS‐10), 15% (QS‐15), 20% (QS‐20), 25% (QS‐25), and 30% (QS‐30), respectively. For each batch of QS product, the weighted quinoa powder, strong flour, inulin, instant dry yeast, and jujube powder (from 0% to 30%) were well‐mixed in a stainless pipe basin (26 cm, Weiai, Jiangsu, China) with drinking water and covered with cling film, and the sample was fermented for 30 min at room temperature. Then the sample was put into the mold and baked at 150°C for 15 min by an air‐fryer (KL60‐VF506, Joyoung, Jinan, China). After chilling down, the quinoa snack was acquired, as shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1.

Color and picture of QS with different additions of jujube powder (0–30%).

Sample Color Picture
L* a* b*
QS‐0 49.18 ± 1.33f 10.52 ± 0.36a 64.28 ± 2.31d graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g029.jpg
QS‐5 46.22 ± 2.07e 11.37 ± 0.29b 22.76 ± 0.44a graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g022.jpg
QS‐10 44.35 ± 1.02b 11.38 ± 0.18b 22.40 ± 0.29a graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g016.jpg
QS‐15 42.15 ± 0.96ab 13.47 ± 0.52c 24.13 ± 0.37b graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g004.jpg
QS‐20 41.63 ± 1.25ab 13.89 ± 0.33c 25.81 ± 0.40bc graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g036.jpg
QS‐25 40.28 ± 0.76a 14.03 ± 0.14c 26.19 ± 0.39c graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g007.jpg
QS‐30 39.14 ± 0.83a 14.11 ± 0.20c 26.53 ± 0.35c graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g013.jpg
Open in a new tab

Note: QS‐0, QS‐5, QS‐10, QS‐15, QS‐20, QS‐25, and QS‐30 was quinoa snack with the addition of jujube powder of 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, and 30%, respectively. Data are represented as the mean ± SD (standard deviation). Mean values with different lower case letters in the same column correspond to significant differences at p < .05.

2.3. Color analysis

The color values (L*, a*, b*) of QS samples were analyzed by an automatic calibration color analyzer (WR‐18, Shenzhen Wave Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd., China). The lens was gently adhered to the surface of the QS samples, and all the measurements were carried out at room temperature for five repetitions, where L*, a*, and b* represent lightness, redness, and yellowness values, respectively (Sun, Qiao, et al., 2023; Sun, Yu, et al., 2023). The QS samples were arranged in the culture dish and photographed to obtain the physical images.

2.4. E‐nose analysis

Aroma profiles of QS samples with different jujube powder additions were analyzed by a PEN 3.5 e‐nose equipped with 10 metal‐oxide semiconductors (Airsense Analytics, GmBH, Schwerin, Germany). According to the method of Song et al. (2022), accurate 5.0 g QS samples were weighed and placed in 20 mL vials for headspace analysis. Briefly, the samples were balanced for 20 min, and G/G0 represents the change in each sensor. The sensor cleaning time was 180 s, and the automatic zero adjustment time was 10 s. The detection time was 120 s with three repetitions. The flow rate of internal and inlet was 600 mL/min.

2.5. Volatile compound analysis

A 4000 GC–MS (Varian Inc., Walnut Creek, CA, USA) equipped with a VF‐5 ms capillary column (Agilent Technologies Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA) was used for the volatile composition analysis of the QS samples. The analysis step was according to the method of Chen, Hu, et al. (2019); Chen, Song, et al. (2019), with some modifications. Briefly, an accurate 5.0 g QS sample was cut into pieces and placed in a 20‐mL solid‐phase micro‐extraction (SPME) vial, which was then sealed with a PTFE‐silicon stopper for bath at 60°C for 30 min. The initial temperature of the oven was 40°C and increased to 150°C at a rate of 4°C/min t, then to 250°C at a rate of 8°C/min for 6 min. The injector temperature and volume were 250°C and 1 μL, respectively. The gas flow rate (99.9% helium) was 1 μL/min with the injection mode of 1/10 split. The scanning range was set at 35–500 m/z to acquire the mass spectra, and the solvent delay was 90 s. The temperature of the ion source and transfer line was 200 and 220°C, respectively. The NIST mass spectral search program v.11.0 (chemdata.nist.gov) was applied for the data processing. Aromatic compounds with a matching degree of over 85 percent were selected for future analysis (Chen, Hu, et al., 2019; Chen, Song, et al., 2019). Hexanal was used as an external standard for the quantitative determination, and the aroma content of the QS sample was calculated by the GC peak areas related to those of hexanal. The standard curve of hexanal was y=0.0001x−0.819, which was established within the concentration range of 0.1 μg/L–10 mg/L (R 2 = .994).

2.6. Statistical analysis

The SPSS software (25.0 version, Inc., Chicago, IL) was applied for the date's treatment of different QS samples. The result was presented as mean ± SD with Duncan's multiple tests at the level of p < .05. The differences in characteristic aroma profiles of QS samples were analyzed by principal component analysis (PCA) based on WinMuster software.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Color and appearance of QS samples

Color is one of the most important factors that determines the sensory quality and consumer acceptance of foods (Xing et al., 2022). As shown in Table 1, the color value and figure of QS samples were significantly (p < .05) affected by the addition of jujube powders, and a similar conclusion was also reported by Xia et al. (2023) that the product color was significantly affected by jujube kernel powder addition. The color values of L* (ranging from 0 for black to 100 for white), a* (ranging from negative green to positive to red), and b* (ranging from negative blue to positive yellow) of QS samples with different jujube powder additions are shown in Table 1. The range of L* values of QS samples was 39.14 (QS‐30)–49.18 (QS‐0), and the L* values of QS‐0 (49.18) was significantly higher (p < .05) than that of QS‐5 (46.22)–QS‐30 (39.24). It indicated that the color of the QS sample became darker with the increasing addition of jujube powders because of the brown color of the jujube powder. The scale of a* value of QS samples was 10.52 (QS‐0)–14.11 (QS‐30), and the supplementation of jujube powders resulted in increase in the redness of QS samples. However, the highest b* value was presented in QS‐0 (64.28) and it significantly (p < .05) reduced with the addition of jujube powders (from 22.76 in QS‐5 to 26.53 in QS‐30). In general, the color characteristics of QS samples were determined by their appearances in pictures, as shown in Table 1, and the result was well in agreement with the L*, a*, and b* value analyses.

3.2. E‐nose analysis

3.2.1. E‐nose response analysis

The response of 10 sensors on the e‐nose to QS samples (data in the 100th second was treated) was presented as a radar chart in Figure 1a, where the response was calculated by G/G 0 (G and G 0 were sensor responses of sample gas and zero gas, respectively; Song et al., 2020). Figure 1a showed the response values of W1S (sensitive to methane), W1W (sensitive to sulfur‐organic compounds), W2S (sensitive to alcohols), W2W (sensitive to sulf‐chlor compounds), and W5S (broad sensitivity) of e‐nose were significant, while other sensor values with little response were less than one (Chen, Hu, et al., 2019; Chen, Song, et al., 2019; Li et al., 2017). The response values of W1S (from 17.50 of QS‐0 to 93.85 of QS‐30) and W1W (from 15.57 of QS‐0 to 39.50 of QS‐30) were significantly higher (p < .05), followed by W5S (from 9.27 of QS‐0 to 39.67 of QS‐30), W2S (from 7.06 of QS‐0 to 24.94 of QS‐30), and W2W (from 4.87 of QS‐0 to 13.60 of QS‐30), indicating the aroma profiles of QS samples were significantly different and well analyzed by e‐nose.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

(a) Radar chart of the e‐nose's sensors to quinoa snack (QS) samples. (b) e‐nose response sensor of W1S to QS samples. (c) e‐nose response sensor of W1W to QS samples. (d) e‐nose response sensor of W2S to QS samples. (e) e‐nose response sensor of W2W to QS samples. (f) e‐nose response sensor of W5S to QS samples. Each test of e‐nose was repeated 5 times.

In order to make clear the aroma profiles of different QS samples, the comparison of responses of W1S, W1W, W2S, W2W, and W5S was, respectively, presented in Figure 1b–f. Results showed that the sensor response curves of W1S, W1W, W5S, W2S, and W2W of QS samples changed with time and the trends of the sensors were similar. Clearly, the highest response values of W1S, W1W, W5S, W2S, and W2W were, respectively, presented in QS‐30, followed by QS‐25 and QS‐20. Meanwhile, the lowest response values of W1S, W1W, W5S, W2S and W2W was respectively presented in QS‐0. It indicated QS‐30 contained the strongest aroma profile, which was significantly enhanced by jujube powder addition (Singh & Gaur, 2023). However, it was difficult to classify different QS samples by just observing the sensor signals; further PCA was still needed.

3.2.2. PCA classification

Principal component analysis (PCA) has the ability to determine complex and difficult‐to‐find variables and evaluate the differences among the samples (Li et al., 2019). In previous studies, aroma profiles of microwave‐dried perilla leaves (Jin et al., 2023), red‐cooked chickens (Sun, Qiao, et al., 2023; Sun, Yu, et al., 2023), and kiwifruits experiencing soft rot (Wang et al., 2023) were successfully characterized by PCA. Hence, PCA was applied for the analysis of QS samples with different jujube powder additions based on the data from e‐nose. As shown in Figure 2, visualization of QS samples with different jujube powder additions was established by PCA, and the total of the first two PCs (main axis 1 of 99.12% plus main axis 2 of 0.69%) of PCA was 99.81%, which was sufficient enough to explain the dataset (Castura et al., 2022). In the PCA plot (Figure 2), QS samples with similar aroma profiles were located overlapping or close to each other, otherwise dissimilar (Song et al., 2020). The sample of QS‐0 was well separated from other samples, indicating the aroma profiles between QS‐0 and QS samples with jujube powder additions were significantly different. QS‐5 was close to QS‐10 and far away from QS‐15, QS‐20, QS‐25, and QS‐30, respectively. QS‐30 was close to QS‐25 and, respectively, far away from other QS samples (Figure 2). It indicated that the aroma profiles of QS samples within a certain range of jujube powder addition were similar, otherwise dissimilar. Generally, the PCA result of the e‐nose can properly distinguish the characteristic aroma profiles of QS samples.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Principal component analysis (PCA) of quinoa snack (QS) samples based on the data from e‐nose.

3.3. GC–MS analysis

3.3.1. Aroma compositions of QS samples

As shown in Table 2, a total of 26 aroma compounds were identified in QS samples by GC–MS. The amount of aroma compounds in QS‐0 and QS samples (QS‐5, QS‐10, QS‐15, QS‐20, QS‐25, and QS‐30) was 14 and 26, respectively, and the content of the aroma compounds was significantly increased with the increasing addition of jujube powder (from 5% to 30%). It indicated that the additive amount of jujube powder can enrich the aroma profile of the QS sample. Considering the individual aroma compounds in QS samples, 3‐methylbutanol (from 1525 μg/kg in QS‐30 to 3487 μg/kg in QS‐0), ethanol (from 1126 μg/kg in QS‐0 to 3581 μg/kg in QS‐30), hexanal (from 125.6 μg/kg in QS‐30 to 984.1 μg/kg in QS‐0), 2‐methylpropanol (from 251.4 μg/kg in QS‐30 to 774.3 μg/kg in QS‐0), 2,3‐butanedione (from 154.6 μg/kg in QS‐30 to 280.4 μg/kg in QS‐0), methylbutanal (from 174.4 μg/kg in QS‐0 to 1212 μg/kg in QS‐30), acetaldehyde (from 191.1 μg/kg in QS‐0 to 531.9 μg/kg in QS‐30) and acetoin (from 170.3 μg/kg in QS‐0 to 1099 μg/kg in QS‐30) were common in QS samples (Table 2). 2‐Methylpropanol, 2‐methylbutanol, 2,3‐butanedione, and hexanal were major in quinoa (Song, Shao, et al., 2021; Song, Yan, et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021) and showed a declining trend with the addition of jujube powder because of its higher content in quinoa than in jujube (Gou et al., 2023; Song et al., 2022). Ethanol was also reported in quinoa (Song, Shao, et al., 2021; Song, Yan, et al., 2021), and it was significantly high in QS samples and showed increasing tendency with the addition of jujube powder, because ethanol was formed during the fermentation process (Garrido‐Galand et al., 2021) and jujube powder provided more reducing sugars (Fu et al., 2021). Table 2 showed acetaldehyde, methylbutanal, acetoin, ethyl acetate, and ethyl octanoate presented an increasing tendency in QS samples with the addition of jujube powder. Moreover, aroma compounds such as acetic acid (from 7.86 μg/kg in QS‐5 to 70.34 μg/kg in QS‐30), hexanoic acid (from 20.07 μg/kg in QS‐5 to 96.89 μg/kg in QS‐30), benzaldehyde (from 88.05 μg/kg in QS‐5 to 627.2 μg/kg in QS‐30), and furfural (from 13.64 μg/kg in QS‐5 to 137.9 μg/kg in QS‐30) were only detected in QS samples with jujube powder addition, which indicated that jujube powder can enhance both the content and quantity of the aroma profile of QS. The reason was that jujube powder can provide rich characteristic aroma compounds to the aroma profile of QS, such as acetic acid and hexanoic acid (Song et al., 2020), and produce new aroma substances by Maillard reaction during the baking process (Qiao et al., 2023; Song et al., 2022). PCA was carried out further to classify different QS samples based on GC–MS data.

TABLE 2.

Volatile compositions of QS with different additions of jujube powder (0–30%) analyzed by GC–MS.

Peak Retention time Compounds Molecular structure Content (μg/kg)
QS‐0 QS‐5 QS‐10 QS‐15 QS‐20 QS‐25 QS‐30
1 1.584 Acetaldehyde graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g032.jpg 191.1 ± 7.28a 258.1 ± 9.15b 302.6 ± 9.81c 338.9 ± 14.0d 403.5 ± 10.7e 482.3 ± 9.16f 531.9 ± 16.7 g
2 1.959 2‐Methylpropanal graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g024.jpg 86.45 ± 2.31c 80.72 ± 2.08bc 78.37 ± 2.06b 77.26 ± 1.99b 75.40 ± 2.52b 73.17 ± 3.01ab 70.61 ± 1.79a
3 2.503 Ethyl acetate graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g037.jpg 35.79 ± 1.52a 38.31 ± 2.06a 46.57 ± 1.86b 60.25 ± 1.9c1 61.18 ± 2.15c 62.03 ± 1.28c 62.55 ± 1.74c
4 2.812 Methylbutanal graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g005.jpg 174.4 ± 6.67a 272.7 ± 12.7b 400.8 ± 14.4c 442.7 ± 10.9d 837.3 ± 22.5e 1205 ± 22.9f 1212 ± 19.5f
5 3.022 Ethanol graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g012.jpg 1126 ± 18.3a 1184 ± 25.0a 1990 ± 26.6b 2232 ± 52.7c 2536 ± 47.1d 3021 ± 55.3e 3581 ± 61.4f
6 3.758 2,3‐Butanedione graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g006.jpg 280.4 ± 8.78d 276.6 ± 10.7d 236.5 ± 6.81c 232.9 ± 5.58c 212.6 ± 7.11b 206.5 ± 7.06b 154.6 ± 3.54a
7 4.943 Ethyl butyrate graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g030.jpg – 17.05 ± 1.23a 26.42 ± 1.09b 41.71 ± 2.26c 49.55 ± 1.96d 68.74 ± 2.63e 82.45 ± 2.88f
8 5.237 (E)‐2‐butenal graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g026.jpg – 58.61 ± 1.42a 81.09 ± 2.21b 114.6 ± 3.90c 154.0 ± 3.81d 301.5 ± 5.38e 949.9 ± 17.1f
9 5.519 2,3‐Pentanedione graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g015.jpg 51.03 ± 1.57e 46.28 ± 1.36d 45.13 ± 1.09d 42.06 ± 1.14d 31.67 ± 1.37c 24.33 ± 0.66b 19.5 ± 0.72a
10 6.084 Hexanal graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g021.jpg 984.1 ± 12.6 g 827.5 ± 13.0f 739.8 ± 10.7e 644.1 ± 9.25d 482.5 ± 8.33c 296.6 ± 5.19b 125.6 ± 3.85a
11 6.126 2‐Methylpropanol graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g003.jpg 774.3 ± 8.72 g 728.3 ± 6.33f 607.3 ± 6.75e 373.8 ± 5.18d 310.8 ± 4.26c 283.7 ± 4.05b 251.4 ± 4.62a
12 9.383 3‐Methylbutanol graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g035.jpg 3487 ± 65.8e 3159 ± 81.3d 3096 ± 66.4d 2206 ± 39.1c 2013 ± 53.0c 1854 ± 47.8b 1525 ± 50.6a
13 10.991 Ethyl hexanoate graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g014.jpg – 51.63 ± 3.02a 99.36 ± 4.74b 158.3 ± 4.18c 210.5 ± 6.65d 280.8 ± 6.19e 314.6 ± 6.77f
14 11.588 Acetic acid graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g023.jpg – 7.86 ± 0.33a 13.44 ± 0.57b 22.51 ± 0.49c 47.89 ± 1.42d 56.39 ± 1.75e 70.34 ± 1.19f
15 11.675 Acetoin graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g031.jpg 170.3 ± 6.14a 273.9 ± 5.92b 320.1 ± 3.37c 360.4 ± 5.22d 504.9 ± 7.04e 819.2 ± 7.76f 1099 ± 16.1 g
16 13.993 1‐Hexanol graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g025.jpg 30.03 ± 0.47a 49.38 ± 0.29b 58.26 ± 0.86c 78.96 ± 1.26d 105.7 ± 1.97e 134.9 ± 2.22f 156.0 ± 1.98 g
17 14.995 Dipropyl disulfide graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g010.jpg 58.06 ± 0.36a 197.2 ± 4.20b 348.3 ± 3.74c 488.6 ± 6.03d 626.0 ± 10.5e 803.9 ± 11.2f 952.2 ± 12.4 g
18 16.999 Furfural graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g008.jpg – 13.64 ± 0.52a 25.18 ± 0.48b 37.09 ± 0.71c 53.99 ± 1.33d 88.72 ± 1.66e 137.9 ± 3.39f
19 17.410 Ethyl octanoate graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g033.jpg 32.25 ± 0.34a 53.45 ± 0.18b 53.97 ± 0.44b 54.27 ± 0.36b 55.96 ± 0.62b 56.05 ± 0.77b 56.59 ± 0.56b
20 18.139 Hexanoic acid graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g002.jpg – 20.07 ± 0.45a 38.63 ± 0.43b 52.10 ± 0.82c 66.38 ± 0.77d 81.42 ± 0.74e 96.89 ± 1.89f
21 18.661 Benzaldehyde graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g020.jpg – 88.05 ± 1.15a 185.4 ± 1.78b 255.7 ± 4.24c 386.9 ± 5.16d 526.6 ± 7.06e 627.2 ± 6.67f
22 18.775 2,3‐Butanediol graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g017.jpg – 185.6 ± 10.4a 223.7 ± 8.54b 362.2 ± 9.71c 443.7 ± 11.2d 572.9 ± 16.0e 704.3 ± 12.5f
23 21.665 Benzeneacetaldehyde graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g009.jpg – 23.06 ± 0.88a 89.75 ± 2.01b 160.3 ± 4.71c 272.9 ± 3.83d 351.2 ± 6.67e 478.1 ± 5.36f
24 22.410 Ethyl benzoate graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g011.jpg – 8.53 ± 0.61a 14.66 ± 0.39b 23.74 ± 0.71c 37.57 ± 0.55d 60.61 ± 1.32e 82.99 ± 3.02f
25 27.647 Phenylethyl alcohol graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g001.jpg – 154.3 ± 4.62a 191.4 ± 5.12b 226.1 ± 4.48c 288.3 ± 6.06d 345.3 ± 12.1e 398.8 ± 9.78f
26 34.784 Indole graphic file with name FSN3-12-4810-g034.jpg – 14.25 ± 0.62a 15.06 ± 0.39ab 16.55 ± 0.55bc 16.73 ± 0.62bc 16.91 ± 0.57c 16.90 ± 0.49c
Open in a new tab

Note: QS‐0, QS‐5, QS‐10, QS‐15, QS‐20, QS‐25, and QS‐30 was quinoa snack with the addition of jujube powder of 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, and 30%, respectively. Data are represented as the mean ± SD (standard deviation). Mean values with different lower case letters in the same column correspond to significant differences at p < .05.

3.3.2. PCA analysis

In order to make clear the characteristics of the volatile profiles of QS samples with different additions of jujube powders, PCA was also applied based on the GC–MS data (Table 2). The PCA chart of different QS samples was presented in Figure 3, and it clearly showed QS samples were well separated, indicating the characteristic volatile compounds of QS samples with different additions of jujube powders were significantly different (Song, Shao, et al., 2021; Song, Yan, et al., 2021). As shown in Figure 3, QS‐0, QS‐5, QS‐10, QS‐15, QS‐20, QS‐25, and QS‐30 were separated one by one along the x‐axis, which indicated that with the increasing addition of jujube powders, the volatile profile of the QS sample was significant. Moreover, QS‐0 was closest to 2‐methylproanal, hexanal, 2,3‐pentanedione, 2,3‐butanedione, 3‐methylbutanol, and 2‐methylpropanol, which indicated that QS‐0 could be characterized by these aroma compositions because these volatile compounds showed the highest content in QS‐0, respectively (Table 2). For the highest content, QS‐30 could be characterized by furfural, acetoin, ethyl benzoate, benzeneacetaldehyde, methylbutanal, acetic acid, 1‐hexanol, benzaldehyde, 2,3‐butanediol, hexanoic acid, and ethyl hexanoate (Figure 3). Generally, PCA was effective in distinguishing the aroma profiles of different QS samples.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Principal component analysis (PCA) of quinoa snack (QS) samples based on the data from GC–MS.

3.4. Combination analysis of e‐nose and GC–MS

In terms of e‐nose, W1S (sensitive to methane) was the most significant in QS samples (Figure 1b). It was mainly caused by the aroma compounds of 3‐methylbutanol, 2‐methylpropanol, 2‐methylpropanal, and methylbutanal (methyl group, –CH3), and 3‐methylbutanol (from 1525 μg/kg in QS‐30 to 3487 μg/kg in QS‐0) was the most common in QS samples. The response of W2S (sensitive to alcohols) of e‐nose to QS samples was also significant, which was because of ethanol, 2‐methylpropanol, 3‐methylbutanol, 1‐hexanol, 2,3‐butanediol, and phenylethyl alcohol (hydroxyl group, –OH) in QS samples, and the strongest response of W2S was to QS‐30 for its highest content of ethanol (3581 μg/kg), 1‐hexanol (156.0 μg/kg), 2,3‐butanediol (704.3 μg/kg), and phenylethyl alcohol (398.8 μg/kg; Table 2). Considering the PCA results of e‐nose (Figure 2) and GC–MS (Figure 3), both of them could well distinguish the volatile profile differences of QS samples with different additions of jujube powders and showed similar graphical layout, and the QS‐30 with the highest jujube content (30%) presented the strongest aroma profile. Generally, the e‐nose results (Figures 1 and 2) were well in agreement with the GC–MS data (Table 1, Figure 3), and their combination could be more effective in the volatile profile analysis of QS samples.

4. CONCLUSION

A quinoa snack (QS) with different jujube additions (from 5% to 30%) was successfully developed, and a total of 26 aroma compounds were identified in QS samples by GC–MS. 3‐Methylbutanol, ethanol, hexanal, 2‐methylpropanol, 2,3‐butanedione, methylbutanal, acetaldehyde, and acetoin were common in QS samples. The aroma profile of the QS sample was significantly (p < .05) enhanced by the addition of jujube powder, and the aroma profile differences of the QS samples could be well distinguished by PCA. In conclusion, QS‐30 with the highest jujube content (30%) presented the strongest aroma profile, which had potential for market applications.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Jianxin Song: Project administration (lead); supervision (lead); writing – original draft (lead). Jiayi Liu: Methodology (lead). Kaile Wang: Data curation (lead). Lei Gao: Investigation (lead). Xiaodong Wang: Project administration (equal); supervision (equal). Jian Peng: Supervision (lead). Ning Wang: Data curation (equal).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks for the support of the Youth Project of Liaoning Provincial Education Department (JYTQN2023334) & the Anhui Provincial Department of Education Key Research Project on Natural Science in Higher Education Institutions (KJ2021A1072), Science and Technology Plan Project of Chuzhou Science and Technology Bureau (2021ZD023);Special fund for scientific innovation strategy‐construction of high‐level Academy of Agricultural Science (Young associate researcher fund NO. R2022PY‐QF004).

Song, J. , Liu, J. , Wang, K. , Gao, L. , Wang, X. , Peng, J. , & Wang, N. (2024). Effect of jujube powder addition on the aroma profile of quinoa snacks (QS). Food Science & Nutrition, 12, 4810–4818. 10.1002/fsn3.4128

Contributor Information

Jianxin Song, Email: sjxsypu@126.com.

Xiaodong Wang, Email: wangcy451@163.com.

Jian Peng, Email: pengjian19890807@163.com.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

REFERENCES

  1. Addo, K. , Bi, J. , Chen, Q. , Wu, X. , Zhou, M. , Lyu, J. , & Song, J. (2019). Understanding the caking behavior of amorphous jujube powder by powder rheometer. LWT – Food Science and Technology, 101, 483–490. [Google Scholar]
  2. Cao, H. , Huang, Q. , Wang, C. , Guan, X. , Huang, K. , & Zhang, Y. (2023). Effect of compositional interaction on in vitro digestion of starch during the milling process of quinoa. Food Chemistry, 403, 134372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Castro, A. V. , Lazarte, C. E. , Perez‐Rea, D. , Carlsson, N. , Almgren, A. , Bergenståhl, B. , & Granfeldt, Y. (2019). Fermentation of pseudocereals quinoa, canihua, and amaranth to improve mineral accessibility through degradation of phytate. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 99(11), 5239–5248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Castura, J. , Rutledge, D. , Ross, C. , & Næs, T. (2022). Discriminability and uncertainty in principal component analysis (PCA) of temporal check‐all‐that‐apply (TCATA) data. Food Quality and Preference, 96, 104370. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chaudhary, N. , Walia, S. , & Kumar, R. (2023). Functional composition, physiological effect and agronomy of future food quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.): A review. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 118, 105192. [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen, J. , Hu, Y. , Yan, R. , & Hu, H. (2019). Effect of high carbon dioxide injury on the physiological characteristics of fresh‐cut garlic scapes. Scientia Horticulturae, 250, 359–365. [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen, Q. , Bi, J. , Zhou, Y. , Liu, X. , & Chen, R. (2014). Multi‐objective optimization of spray drying of jujube (Ziziphus jujuba miller) powder using response surface methodology. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 7, 1807–1818. [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen, Q. , Song, J. , Bi, J. , Meng, X. , & Wu, X. (2019). Characterization of volatile profile from ten different varieties of Chinese jujubes by HS‐SPME/GC–MS coupled with E‐nose. Food Research International, 105, 605–615. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Fu, L. , Yang, J. , Shang, H. , & Song, J. (2021). Changes of characteristic sugar, fatty acid, organic acid and amino acid in jujubes at different dry mature stages. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 104, 104104. [Google Scholar]
  10. Garrido‐Galand, S. , Asensio‐Grau, A. , Calvo‐Lerma, J. , Heredia, A. , & Andrés, A. (2021). The potential of fermentation on nutritional and technological improvement of cereal and legume flours: A review. Food Research International, 145, 110398. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gou, M. , Chen, Q. , Qiao, Y. , Jin, X. , Zhang, J. , Yang, H. , Fauconnier, M. L. , & Bi, J. (2023). Key aroma‐active compounds identification of Ziziphus jujuba cv. Huizao: Effect of pilot scale freeze‐drying. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 116, 105072. [Google Scholar]
  12. Jin, G. , Zhu, Z. , Wu, Z. , Wang, F. , Li, J. , Raghavan, V. , Li, B. , & Song, C. (2023). Characterization of volatile components of microwave dried perilla leaves using GC‐MS and E‐nose. Food Bioscience, 56, 103083. [Google Scholar]
  13. Li, M. , Yang, R. , Zhang, H. , Wang, S. , Chen, D. , & Lin, S. (2019). Development of a flavor fingerprint by HS‐GC‐IMS with PCA for volatile compounds of Tricholoma matsutake singer. Food Chemistry, 290, 32–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Li, Q. , Yu, X. , Xu, L. , & Gao, J. (2017). Novel method for the producing area identification of Zhongning goji berries by electronic nose. Food Chemistry, 211, 1113–1119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Liu, M. , & Zhao, Z. (2009). Germplasm resources and production of jujube in China. Acta Horticulturae, 840, 25–31. [Google Scholar]
  16. Navruz‐Varli, S. , & Şanlier, N. (2016). Nutritional and health benefits of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Journal of Cereal Science, 69, 371–376. [Google Scholar]
  17. Niu, M. , Chen, X. , Zhou, W. , Guo, Y. , Yuan, X. , Cui, J. , Shen, Z. , & Su, N. (2023). Multi‐omics analysis provides insights intro lysine accumulation in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) sprouts. Food Research International, 171, 113026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Pearsall, D. (1992). The origins of plant cultivation in south america. In Cowan C. W. & Watson P. J. (Eds.), The origins of agriculture. An international perspective (p. 173205). Smithsonian Institution Press. [Google Scholar]
  19. Qiao, Y. , Chen, Q. , Gou, M. , Liu, Z. , Purcaro, G. , Jin, X. , Wu, X. , Lyu, J. , & Bi, J. (2023). Elucidation of baking induced changes in key odorants of red jujube (Ziziphus jujuba mill. cv. ‘Junzao’). Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 120, 105320. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ren, G. , Teng, C. , Fan, X. , Guo, S. , Zhao, G. , Zhang, L. , Liang, Z. , & Qin, P. (2023). Nutrient composition, functional activity and industrial applications of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Food Chemistry, 410, 135290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Sezgin, A. , & Sanlier, N. (2019). A new generation plant for the conventional cuisine: Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Trends in Food Science and Technology, 86, 51–58. [Google Scholar]
  22. Shahidi, F. , & Chandrasekara, A. (2013). Millet grain phenolics and their role in disease reduction and health promotion: A review. Journal of Functional Foods, 5, 570–581. [Google Scholar]
  23. Singh, S. , & Gaur, S. (2023). Development of rapid and non‐destructive electric nose (E‐nose) system for shelf life evaluation of different edible seeds. Food Chemistry, 426, 136562. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Song, J. , Chen, Q. , Bi, J. , Meng, X. , Wu, X. , Qiao, Y. , & Lyu, Y. (2020). GC/MS coupled with MOS e‐nose and flash GC e‐nose for volatile characterization of Chinese jujubes as affected by different drying methods. Food Chemistry, 331, 127201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Song, J. , Han, J. , Fu, L. , Shang, H. , & Yang, L. (2022). Assessment of characteristics aroma of heat pump drying (HPD) jujube based on HS‐SPME/GC‐MS and e‐nose. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 110, 104402. [Google Scholar]
  26. Song, J. , Shao, Y. , Yan, Y. , Li, X. , Peng, J. , & Guo, L. (2021). Characterization of volatile profiles of three colored quinoas based on GC‐IMS and PCA. LWT – Food Science and Technology, 146, 111292. [Google Scholar]
  27. Song, J. , & Tang, Y. (2023). Effect of extrusion temperature on characteristic amino acids, fatty acids, organic acids, and phenolics of white quinoa based on metabolomics. Food Research International, 169, 112761. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Song, J. , Yan, Y. , Wang, X. , Li, X. , Chen, Y. , Li, L. , & Li, W. (2021). Characterization of fatty acids, amino acids and organic acids in three colored quinoas based on untargeted and targeted metabolomics. LWT – Food Science and Technology, 140, 110690. [Google Scholar]
  29. Starzyńska‐Janiszewska, A. , Stodolak, B. , Duliński, R. , Fernández‐Fernández, C. , Martín‐García, B. , & Gόmez‐Caravaca, A. (2023). Evaluation of saponin and phenolic profile of quinoa seeds after fungal fermentation. Journal of Cereal Science, 111, 103656. [Google Scholar]
  30. Sun, W. , Qiao, L. , Li, X. , Gu, J. , Zhou, Y. , & Wang, P. (2023). The relationship between the surface color and astaxanthin concentration of different fillet parts of Atlantic salmon under mariculture and freshwater farming modes. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 123, 105506. [Google Scholar]
  31. Sun, X. , Yu, Y. , Saleh, A. , Yang, X. , Ma, J. , Gao, Z. , Zhang, D. , Li, W. , & Wang, Z. (2023). Characterization of aroma profiles of Chinese four most famous traditional red‐cooked chickens using GC‐MS, GC‐IMS, and E‐nose. Food Research International, 173, 113335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Wang, Y. , Wang, D. , Lv, Z. , Zeng, Q. , Fu, X. , Chen, Q. , Luo, Z. , Luo, C. , Wang, D. , & Zhang, W. (2023). Analysis of the volatile profiles of kiwifruits experiencing soft rot using E‐nose and HS‐SPME/GC‐MS. LWT – Food Science and Technology, 173, 114405. [Google Scholar]
  33. Xia, X. , Li, F. , Ran, H. , Zhao, J. , Lei, X. , Lei, L. , Wen, J. , Xiao, G. , Zeng, K. , & Ming, J. (2023). Effect of jujube kernel powder addition on moisture absorption performance, color stability, texture properties and agglomeration characteristics of jujube powder. LWT – Food Science and Technology, 174, 114452. [Google Scholar]
  34. Xing, S. , Liu, L. , Zhang, X. , Guan, H. , Gong, H. , Li, H. , & Liu, W. (2022). A mathematical model to predict the color change of fresh dough sheets under fluctuation temperature. LWT – Food Science and Technology, 162, 113447. [Google Scholar]
  35. Yang, X. , Zhu, K. , Guo, H. , Geng, Y. , Lv, W. , Wang, S. , Guo, Y. , Qin, P. , & Ren, G. (2021). Characterization of volatile compounds in differently coloured Chenopodium quinoa seeds before and after cooking by headspace‐gas chromatography‐ion mobility spectrometry. Food Chemistry, 348, 129086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Articles from Food Science & Nutrition are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES