Table 1.

Sensor outputs from the A32S electronic-nose sensor array comparing headspace volatiles released from meat core samples of good-flavor and off-flavor catfish based on conducting polymer (CP) analyses.

	Sensor Number†
Meat type	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	13
Off-flavor	4.99 ± 0.04	4.56 ± 0.04	5.18 ± 0.03	2.80 ± 0.01	2.76 ± 0.01	2.81 ± 0.01	5.80 ± 0.01	5.66 ± 0.01	4.87 ± 0.03	4.85 ± 0.05	4.01 ± 0.01
Good-flavor	5.38 ± 0.01	4.89 ± 0.02	5.52 ± 0.02	2.84 ± 0.01	2.83 ± 0.01	2.84 ± 0.01	5.96 ± 0.01	5.95 ± 0.01	5.00 ± 0.01	4.66 ± 0.01	4.29 ± 0.01
	Sensor Number†
Meat type	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	27	28	29	30
Off-flavor	3.58 ± 0.00	4.25 ± 0.02	3.83 ± 0.01	5.23 ± 0.01	5.33 ± 0.01	5.09 ± 0.01	3.82 ± 0.05	7.40 ± 0.02	6.81 ± 0.03	6.36 ± 0.02	NR
Good-flavor	3.96 ± 0.01	4.42 ± 0.01	4.15 ± 0.01	5.37 ± 0.01	5.51 ± 0.01	5.25 ± 0.01	NR	7.32 ± 0.02	7.00 ± 0.03	6.83 ± 0.03	NR

^†Each sensor in the sensor array was coated with a different intrinsically conducting polymer, (composed of polypyrrole, polyanaline, or polythiophene derivatives), modified by proprietary ring-substitutions with different functional groups to impart unique conductive properties (resistance responses to VOCs). All conducting polymers were doped with specific metal ions to improve and modulate polymer conductivity and sensor sensitivity. Values for each sensor are mean normalized data (transformed from raw data of sensor intensities) expressed as mean ΔR/R_base% ± SD, derived from ten sample replications per sensor type. NR indicates no sensor response was produced or recorded for this meat type (aroma class). All sensor values for off-flavor vs. good-flavor meat types (for each sensor) were significantly different at the P < 0.001 level of significance, except for numbered sensors with NR.