Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Food Chemistry: X logoLink to Food Chemistry: X
. 2023 Jan 7;17:100564. doi: 10.1016/j.fochx.2023.100564

Approach to evaluate the sensory quality deterioration of chicken seasoning using characteristic oxidation indicators

Hao-Yu Xu a, Xiao-Wei Chen a, Jun Li a, Yan-Lan Bi a,b,⁎
PMCID: PMC9944985  PMID: 36845492

Graphical abstract

graphic file with name ga1.jpg

Open in a new tab

Keywords: Chicken seasoning, Sensory quality, Lipid oxidation, GC–MS, Oxidation indicators

Highlights

  • •

    Oil oxidation is the dominant factor in the quality deterioration of chicken seasoning.

  • •

    POV and TOTOX could evaluate quantically the deterioration of chicken seasoning.

  • •

    Multiple techniques evaluated aldehydes were highly correlated with sensory profiles.

  • •

    Volatile hexanal as indicators for evaluating the deterioration of chicken essence seasoning.

Abstract

Sensory quality deterioration of chicken seasoning was investigated using physicochemical properties, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC–MS) and descriptive sensory analysis to approach an evaluation of the chicken seasoning deterioration. It was found that both peroxide value (POV) and total oxidation value (TOTOX) increased with the chicken seasoning deterioration, suggesting a dominant of the lipid oxidation in the sensory quality deterioration of chicken seasoning. Moreover, a continuously decreasing linoleic acid and contradictory increasing in volatile aldehydes (specifically for hexanal) indicated as characteristic oxidation indicators to evaluate the sensory quality deterioration. PLSR results further elucidated that the evolution of aldehydes was highly correlated with sensory quality deterioration. These results suggest the POV, TOTOX and hexanal as valuable indicators and provide a novel approach to quality and rapidly evaluate the sensory quality deterioration of chicken seasoning.

Introduction

Chicken seasoning has been widely used as an important food ingredient in China to improve food flavor. It not only presents the umami advantage of ordinary monosodium glutamate, but also inherits the essence of traditional Chinese compound seasoning broth with the natural flavor of chicken (Zhu et al., 2020). Over the next five years, the market for chicken seasoning in China is expected to grow 17.19 % annually and reached 495 million. Unfortunately, it is prone to sensory quality deterioration during storage (Beltran et al., 2003). A particularly important attribute when it comes to choosing seasonings is the sensory quality, which is traditionally assessed by a descriptive sensory analysis.

Human sensory evaluation has been employed for the determination of the deterioration in chicken seasoning. For example, Tian et al. (2014) used sensory evaluation to study the sensory quality deterioration and found 8 sensory attributes. The sensory evaluation provides integrated, direct measurements of perceived intensities of target attributes (Fang et al., 2019, Tian et al., 2019). However, it is time-consuming and easily influenced by a trained taster's mental and physical state. Recently, electronic nose has been developed for the evaluation of many tastes (Ali et al., 2020, Hu and Jacobsen, 2016). By simulating the human sense of taste, the electronic tongue helps differentiate samples and formulations (Tian et al., 2014). Although it can give good prediction results for the sensory attributes, an expensive taste sensor is necessity (Tian et al., 2014, Tian et al., 2018). Moreover, it is still unknown how the sensory quality of chicken seasoning deteriorates during storage. To get more specific information, chemical analysis is expected to apply due to a good repeatability and credibility.

Recently, some chemical technologies like GC–MS have been employed to assess the sensory quality deterioration of seasonings. Tian et al. (2018) detected fourteen compounds including aldehydes, sulfurs, ketones, and heterocyclic compounds using GC–MS, and found those compounds are associated with an increase in lipid oxidation. Beltran et al. (2003) discovered that one of the most important factors influencing the sensory quality of cooked and pressurized chicken is lipid oxidation. Lipids in chicken seasoning are important to the nutrition and flavor; however, they are prone to oxidation because of their high polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) content. Therefore, the lipid components of chicken seasoning undergo oxidation during storage, which seems to negatively impact their nutritional value and quality (Cao et al., 2014, Tian et al., 2019). Nonetheless, there is non-objective approach to evaluate the sensory quality deterioration of chicken seasoning using characteristic oxidation indicators. Additionally, there are no clear relationships among sensory descriptors, physicochemical properties, and volatile compounds identified by chicken seasoning discrimination to explore usable and sensitive oxidation indicators for evaluating the sensory quality deterioration of chicken seasoning.

The principal objectives of this study were to (a) determine whether oil oxidation is the cause of sensory deterioration of chicken seasonings by observing the changes of physicochemical indexes, fatty acid composition and volatile substances, (b) to investigate the relationship between fat composition and volatile substances of chicken seasonings by principal component analysis (PCA), (c) and to investigate the relationship between sensory properties and volatile substances of chicken seasonings by multivariate statistical techniques including hierarchical clustering analysis (HCA), pearson correlation coefficient (PCCs) and partial least-squares regression (PLSR) to clarify the characteristic oxidation indicators in the sensory deterioration of chicken seasonings. The findings would provide good and sensitive indicators for the quality and rapid evaluation of chicken seasoning deterioration.

Materials and methods

Chemicals and materials

Commercial chicken seasoning (78 packages, a certain brand with the same ingredients, containing sodium glutamate, salt, sugar, rice flour, chicken, whole egg liquid, flavors, onion, garlic, disodium 5′-ribonucleotide and riboflavin) were purchased from dozens supermarkets in Zhengzhou and Shanghai, and the deterioration was determined by sensory evaluation and divided into different levels of deterioration based on the intensity of rancid flavor, where 30 packs of fresh ones (F), 9 packs of light deteriorated ones (L), 16 packs of medium deteriorated ones (M) and 23 packs of serious deteriorated ones (S). 2,4,6-trimethylpyridine, the mixed standards of 37 kinds of fatty acid methyl esters and C7-C40 saturated alkanes were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich Co. (St. Louis, MO, USA). All the other chemical reagents were of analytical grade.

Determination of crude fat and moisture content

Both indicators were determined according to AOCS official methods Ba 3-38 and Ba 2a-38.

Determination of oil oxidation

Peroxidation value.

The peroxide value (POV) was determined referring to the report by Jensen et al. (2011) with minor modifications. First, 1.0 g of crushed chicken seasoning was mixed evenly with 5 mL of trichloromethane/methanol mixture (7:3, v/v) solution, followed by centrifuging for 2 min at 4000g. Next, the supernatant was transferred into a flask, followed by diluting to 10 mL with trichloromethane/methanol (7:3, v/v), and adding 50 μL of ferric chloride solution (3.5 g/L) and 50 μL of potassium thiocyanate solutions (300 g/L). Finally, the reaction kept still for 5 min under dark conditions before measuring the absorbance at 500 nm by an UV–vis spectrophotometer (TU-1810, Beijing Purkinj General Instrument Co., ltd).

Total oxidation value.

Total oxidation value (TOTOX) is commonly selected because it is an effective oxidative indicator or marker for determining the entire primary and secondary lipid oxidation product. For bulk oils, TOTOX is suitable to measure POV and anisidine value. However, conventional TOTOX values could not be used to evaluate complicated multiphase food systems, such as anhydrous foods. According to the report by Hu and Jacobsen (2016), a widely used TOTOX value could be defined as: TOTOX=4×POV+100×∑Cn1000×Mn, where POV is peroxide value (mmol/kg); Cn is the content of aldehydes (μg/kg); Mn is the molar mass of an aldehyde (g/mol); 100: conversion factor; 1000: content conversion factor.

Fatty acids composition analysis

The composition of fatty acids was analyzed using gas chromatography (GC). Firstly, the oil in chicken seasoning was extracted and methylated as described by Yang et al. (2021). The fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs) were analyzed using an 8860 GC (Agilent Technologies, USA) equipped with a capillary column (SGE BPX-70, 30 m × 250 μm × 0.25 μm) (SGE Analytical Science, UAS). The injector and detector temperatures were both set at 250 °C. The oven temperature was set at 170 °C and then increased to 210 °C at a rate of 2 °C/min. The flow rate of N2 carrier gas was set at 1.0 mL/min. Each component was identified by corresponding retention time compared to the mixed standards of 37 kinds of FAMEs, and quantified by the area normalization method.

SPME-GC–Ms

The volatile compounds in chicken seasoning were analyzed using a solid-phase microextraction gas chromatography-mass spectrometry approach (SPME-GC–MS). Firstly, a 15-mL vial was filled with 5.0 g of chicken seasoning and 5.0 g of water. 30 μL of internal standard (2,4,6-trimethylpyridine, 65 μg/g) was added and incubated in a thermostat water bath at 65 °C for 30 min. Then, a solid-phase microextraction fiber (SPME, 65 μm PDMS/DVB, Supelco, Sigma Aldrich) was used to enrich the volatile compounds for 30 min. Then, the volatile compounds were measured using an 7890A GC equipped with a HP-5MS capillary column (30 m × 255 μm × 0.25 μm, Agilent Technologies, USA) and an Agilent 5975C mass detector. The oven temperature was held at 50 °C for 5 min, then increased to 90 °C at 2 °C/min and maintained for 5 min, followed by climbing to 230 °C at 10 °C/min and maintained for 5 min. Mass spectrometry analysis was performed under a full scan mode with a m/z range of 33–500. Ionization was accomplished using electron impact (EI) at a source temperature of 230 °C and an electronic energy of 70 eV. Each compound was identified by retention index (RI) and mass spectrometry (MS), and quantified by internal standard method. RI meant that the compounds were identified by comparing with literature data <25, MS meant that the compounds were identified by comparing mass spectra in the NIST11.L library search system with a match of more than 80 %.

Sensory evaluation

Quantitative descriptive analysis (QDA) was used to evaluate sensory attributes using a ten-point hedonic scale, where a score of 10 indicated an excellent product and a score of 1 indicated an absolute poor product. The sensory panel consisted of twelve assessors (trained scientists and post graduate students of the division, six male and six female) aging from 21 to 54 years old, who were selected and trained based on the Sensory Evaluation Practices proposed by Stone et al. (2012). Panelists were briefed about the nature of experiments and technically cultivated for 6 h to guarantee the sensory descriptors of chicken seasoning including rancidity, chicken flavor, fishy smell, fat, umami, whole aroma and acceptability (Tian et al., 2018). All participants acknowledged informed consent prior to this study, and the rights and privacy of each participant were ensured. All sensory sessions were conducted in individual booths in a test room designed to meet the requirements of ISO 8589:2007. 30 g of each chicken seasoning was placed in a brown wide-mouth bottle and sealed in a 65 °C water bath for 5 min before being presented to the sensory panelists. All samples were individually numbered in three-digital numbers at random and evaluated one after the other using QDA. Compusense Cloud (Compusense Inc., Ontario, Canada) was used to collect sensory data.

Statistical analysis

All experiments were carried out at least twice, and data were presented as mean ± standard deviation. Principal component analysis (PCA) and partial least squares regression (PLSR) were statistically analyzed using The Unscrambler X (ver. 10.4, CAMO software, Norway), hieratical cluster analysis (HCA) and Pearson correlation coefficient (PCCs) were analyzed and visualized using R studio (ver. 3.6.3, AT&T Bell Laboratories, USA). The rest of the data was analyzed by Duncan’s multiple range tests using SPSS (ver. 26.0, IBM SPSS, USA) and plotted by Origin Pro (ver. 2022, OriginLab, USA).

Results and discussion

Quality changes of chicken seasoning

As illustrated in Fig. 1, the quality of chicken seasoning was evaluated by sensory, fat content, moisture content, peroxide value (POV), and total oxidation value (TOTOX). Typical chicken seasonings were investigated, such as three fresh ones (F), three light deteriorate ones (L), three medium deteriorate ones (M) and three serious deteriorate ones (S). A radar map was based on the score of the sensory attributes of three groups with different storage times. From Fig. 1a, obvious differences in the four groups were observed for rancidity, chicken flavor, fat, umami, whole aroma and acceptability; that is, the characteristic flavor of chicken seasoning deteriorated as a result of sensory quality degradation (Tian et al., 2014). Additionally, rancidity scores were ascended significantly as storage time, which indicates that the samples developed an unpleasant flavor during the storage. Tian et al. (2018) previously reported that the deteriorated chicken seasoning has a rancid flavor. Meanwhile, Sohn & Ohshima, (2010) also found that the rancid flavor of raw fish is produced by lipid oxidation.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

(a) The radar map of the chicken seasonings, where the * in the graph of flavor indicate there was a significant difference between the four groups of samples (p < 0.05). Crude fat content (b), moisture content (c), POV (d) and TOTOX (e) of chicken seasoning as function of the deterioration levels form sensory evaluation.

Lipid oxidation is a major cause of quality degradation in oil-rich foods, resulting in a decrease in nutritional and sensory value (Ghorbani Gorji et al., 2019). Thus, the fat content, moisture content, POV and TOTOX were evaluated. From Fig. 1b, low crude oil was observed in these chicken seasonings ranging from 0.15 to 0.33 g/100 g with an average value of 0.20 g/100 g. The slight drop in oil content with increased storage time might be attributed to its loss in the form of oxidation products (Tian et al., 2014). Moreover, there was no obvious change in the moisture content from 0.77 to 1.54 g/100 g with an average value of 1.23 g/100 g during the storage of the four groups (Fig. 1c). Focusing on the physical properties only, there was not a regular trend, suggesting both oil and moisture content cannot be used to evaluate the deterioration of chicken seasoning. Similar results had been reported by Tian et al. (2014). However, the physical properties of this low-fat and low-moisture content provided the basis for the selection of a method to determine the peroxide value.

In spite of low oil content, it was considered to be an important influence on the quality deterioration of chicken seasoning (Tian et al., 2018). As demonstrated in Fig. 1d, there was a significant (p < 0.05) increase in POV as chicken seasoning deterioration intensified, where from 0.020 to 0.022 mmol/kg for the F group, 0.073–0.129 mmol/kg for the L group, 0.144–0.169 mmol/kg for the M group to 0.122–0.177 mmol/kg for the S group. The POV of the S group was expanded about 6–9 times compared with the F group, indicating an oil oxidation in the chicken seasoning during storage. TOTOX was commonly used to assess the degree of oil oxidation (Esfarjani et al., 2019). From Fig. 1e, TOTOX raised from an initial level of 0.12 ± 0.00 to 2.33 ± 0.15 after the sensory quality deterioration of chicken seasoning. Moreover, the order of oxidation degree of the four groups of samples was: group S > group M > group L > group F. These results indicated oil oxidation was the main factor in chicken seasoning deterioration, and both POV and TOTOX were key indicators for evaluating the oxidation status of the chicken seasoning.

Changes of the fatty acid composition

The fatty acid composition of oil in chicken seasoning was also determined, as shown in Table 1. A total of 8 fatty acids were identified in the fat of chicken seasoning. There were mostly unsaturated fatty acids, such as oleic acid and linoleic acid, with around 4 % palm oleic acid. The unsaturated fatty acid content showed a decreasing significantly (p < 0.05) with the deterioration increasing. For example, the highest linoleic acid (20.07 %-25.05 %) and linolenic acid (1.39 % to 1.93 %) were observed in the F ones, but the lowest linoleic acid (11.82 %–12.26 %) and linolenic acid (0.65 % to 0.91 %) were observed in the S ones. To insight the relationship between the fatty acid composition and sensory quality deterioration, PCA was further performed, as shown in Fig. 2. From the Fig. 2a, the contribution of PC1 was 97 % while PC2 contributed 3 %, showing that the recovered principal component factors may accurately capture the vast majority of information from the original data (Tian et al., 2014, Tian et al., 2018). Moreover, the projection of the four groups on the PC1 axis has no intersection, which indicates that PC1 is the largest contributor to distinguish the four groups from each other. The loading plot depicts the coefficients of the independent variable (fatty acids), and the larger the absolute value of the load coordinate, the greater the effect on the principal components (Cui et al., 2020). It can be seen from Fig. 2b that the PC1 coefficients of fatty acids (e.g., linoleic acid, linolenic acid, oleic acid, palmitic acid and stearic acid) were greater than that of PC2 coefficients, indicating PC1 reflects mainly the information of these five fatty acids. Meanwhile, the negative values of linoleic acid and linolenic on the PC1 coordinates were observed, suggesting a negative relationship; while as oleic acid, palmitic acid and stearic acid was confirmed positively correlated with PC1. These results can be claimed that the linoleic acid was severely oxidized during the deterioration of chicken seasoning, followed by linolenic acid.

Table 1.

Fatty acid composition (%) in fat of chicken seasoning.a.

Fatty acids Samples
F1 F2 F3 L1 L2 L3 M1 M2 M3 S1 S2 S3
Myristic acid 0.54 ± 0.00f 0.54 ± 0.00f 0.54 ± 0.00f 0.60 ± 0.00de 0.59 ± 0.00e 0.61 ± 0.01d 0.66 ± 0.01bc 0.67 ± 0.00bc 0.66 ± 0.00c 0.69 ± 0.01a 0.69 ± 0.00a 0.68 ± 0.02ab
Palmitic acid 24.80 ± 0.02f 24.76 ± 0.05f 24.85 ± 0.01f 27.05 ± 0.19e 27.24 ± 0.03de 27.65 ± 0.12d 31.08 ± 0.03bc 30.63 ± 0.07c 30.81 ± 0.04c 31.56 ± 0.22ab 31.81 ± 0.02a 31.95 ± 0.65ab
Palm oleic acid 3.58 ± 0.01c 3.61 ± 0.04c 3.54 ± 0.00c 4.62 ± 0.68ab 5.19 ± 0.01a 5.03 ± 0.04a 3.80 ± 0.06c 4.74 ± 0.08a 4.77 ± 0.00a 4.01 ± 0.66bc 4.82 ± 0.05a 4.74 ± 0.05a
Stearic acid 5.49 ± 0.01d 5.44 ± 0.01d 5.53 ± 0.04d 5.44 ± 0.09d 5.47 ± 0.05d 5.57 ± 0.00d 6.78 ± 0.03a 6.16 ± 0.02c 6.26 ± 0.01bc 6.62 ± 0.18a 6.41 ± 0.02b 6.42 ± 0.15b
Oleic acid 38.08 ± 0.02d 38.16 ± 0.03d 38.14 ± 0.06d 40.85 ± 0.52a 40.78 ± 0.09a 40.83 ± 0.07a 40.02 ± 0.07c 40.37 ± 0.09bc 40.6 ± 0.09ab 40.12 ± 0.07c 40.86 ± 0.09a 40.15 ± 0.06c
Linoleic acid 25.04 ± 0.02a 25.05 ± 0.02a 25.02 ± 0.02a 18.93 ± 0.38b 18.87 ± 0.05b 18.11 ± 0.13b 13.52 ± 0.12d 14.48 ± 0.04c 13.78 ± 0.00cd 12.26 ± 0.01e 11.82 ± 0.02e 11.91 ± 1.13e
Linolenic acid 1.86 ± 0.11a 1.93 ± 0.00a 1.93 ± 0.01a 1.02 ± 0.07b 1.01 ± 0.01b 0.91 ± 0.02b 0.79 ± 0.05c 0.92 ± 0.01b 0.76 ± 0.01cd 0.91 ± 0.02b 0.65 ± 0.00d 0.73 ± 0.07cd
Others 0.61 ± 0.03f 0.50 ± 0.15f 0.45 ± 0.08f 1.50 ± 0.00e 0.85 ± 0.07f 1.29 ± 0.26e 3.35 ± 0.09bc 2.03 ± 0.28d 2.36 ± 0.04d 3.84 ± 0.15a 2.94 ± 0.10c 3.42 ± 0.40ab
MUFAs 41.66 ± 0.03g 41.77 ± 0.07g 41.68 ± 0.06g 45.47 ± 0.16bcd 45.97 ± 0.09a 45.86 ± 0.02ab 43.82 ± 0.00f 45.11 ± 0.16de 45.37 ± 0.09cd 44.12 ± 0.59f 45.68 ± 0.04abc 44.89 ± 0.02e
PUFAs 26.90 ± 0.09a 26.99 ± 0.02a 26.95 ± 0.03a 19.95 ± 0.45b 19.88 ± 0.06bc 19.02 ± 0.15c 14.31 ± 0.17e 15.40 ± 0.03d 14.54 ± 0.01de 13.18 ± 0.03f 12.47 ± 0.03f 12.64 ± 1.20f
UFAs 68.56 ± 0.06a 68.76 ± 0.09a 68.63 ± 0.10a 65.42 ± 0.29b 65.85 ± 0.15b 64.88 ± 0.13b 58.13 ± 0.17d 60.52 ± 0.19c 59.91 ± 0.10c 57.30 ± 0.56d 58.15 ± 0.07d 57.53 ± 1.22d
SFAs 30.83 ± 0.03e 30.74 ± 0.06e 30.92 ± 0.02e 33.08 ± 0.29d 33.3 ± 0.08cd 33.83 ± 0.13c 38.52 ± 0.08a 37.46 ± 0.09b 37.73 ± 0.05b 38.86 ± 0.40a 38.91 ± 0.04a 39.05 ± 0.82a
Open in a new tab
a

MUFAs: monounsaturated fatty acids, PUFAs: polyunsaturated fatty acids, UFAs: unsaturated fatty acids, SFAs: Saturated fatty acids.; Different superscript letters represent significant differences with other values in the same row at p < 0.05.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Principal component analysis (PCA) score plot (a) and loading plot (b) of fatty acid composition in chicken seasoning samples.

Changes of the volatile compounds

The sensory quality deterioration of chicken seasoning was more noticeably in volatile compounds. Further, the volatile compounds in these chicken seasonings were quantified using GC–MS. A total of 55 volatile compounds were identified, including 3 sulfurs, 13 aldehydes, 10 ketones, 4 alcohols and phenols, 11 olefins, 2 alkanes, 2 heterocycles, 5 pyrazines and 5 esters From the Tables 2, six aldehydes were detected in the fresh samples. Moreover, the content of these aldehydes increased sharply (p < 0.05) with the increase of deterioration, such as hexanal and nonanal from 18.46 to 25.89 μg/kg and 12.49–25.56 μg/kg to 711.05–995.49 μg/kg and 329.39–366.76 μg/kg, respectively. It was worth noted that some new aldehydes were detected in the deteriorated samples, such as heptanal, octanal, (E)-2-octenal, decanal, (E, E)-2,4-nonadienal, (E)-2-decenal, and 2-butyl-2-octenal. As known, aldehydes are the typical secondary oxidation products resulting from oil oxidation, where both hexanal and heptanal are produced by the oxidation of linoleic acid; (E)-2-octenal is produced by the oxidation of linoleic acid to produce 2,4 decadienal through a reverse alcohol-aldol condensation reaction; while octanal, nonanal, decanal, and (E)-2-decenal are produced by the oxidation of oleic acid (Cao et al., 2014, Cao et al., 2020, Kalua et al., 2007, Multari et al., 2019). The increase in hexanal, heptanal, and (E)-2-octenal was correlated with a decrease in linoleic acid content in the deteriorated samples (Table 1). The elevated content of octanal, nonanal and decanal indicates that the oxidation of oleic acid also occurred during the deterioration of chicken seasoning, which is consistent with some previous studies where the contents of hexanal, heptanal, octanal, nonanal and pentanal increased in chicken, beef and pork that underwent lipid oxidation after irradiation (Kwon et al., 2008, Zheng et al., 2022). More importantly, the odor thresholds of these aldehydes are usually low and have important effects on the flavor of foods (Chen et al., 2016). For example, hexanal (5 μg/kg) and nonanal (1.1 μg/kg), which impart a green, fatty flavor to foods at low concentrations, but cause rancid flavor at high concentrations (Brewer et al., 1999, Van, 2011). This finding was also consistent with the results for the oil oxidation (Fig. 1d and 1e). Therefore, it is confirmed that these aldehydes are responsible for the rancid flavor of chicken seasoning. Although the contents of alkanes and olefins increased from 2.39–6.32 μg/kg and 148.16–295.56 μg/kg to 7.79–18.49 μg/kg and 361.88–628.23 μg/kg, respectively, the odor thresholds of these two types of volatiles are usually high and often play a basal role for the flavor in foods (Liu et al., 2021, Tian et al., 2019).

Table 2.

Characteristic volatile compounds (μg/kg) in different chicken seasonings.

No Compounds RIa RIcalb IDc Threshold
(μg/kg)d 		Aroma description e Samples
F1 F2 F3 L1 L2 L3 M1 M2 M3 S1 S2 S3
1 Methyl furfuryl disulfide 1230 1229 RI, MS 0.04 smoking, fumigation 8.03 ± 0.62d 5.14 ± 0.94e 4.45 ± 0.63ef 2.90 ± 0.39f 3.82 ± 1.29ef ND 5.53 ± 0.06e 10.47 ± 0.95c 5.30 ± 1.33e 15.25 ± 1.22a 9.00 ± 0.92cd 12.87 ± 0.66b
2 Diallyl trisulfide 1294 MS garlic 91.17 ± 0.10a 31.93 ± 9.48ef 26.45 ± 5.71f 13.24 ± 0.34g 24.20 ± 2.47fg 12.69 ± 4.24g 38.44 ± 5.11de 50.71 ± 1.54bc 59.78 ± 4.02b 23.48 ± 0.96fg 86.40 ± 9.60a 43.93 ± 0.42cd
3 Difurfuryl dsulfide 1687 MS 0.00015 nutty, coffee, meaty 12.70 ± 5.63ab 10.87 ± 4.50ab 7.58 ± 0.17ab 5.29 ± 0.33ab 3.27 ± 2.38b 4.74 ± 2.03b 13.74 ± 10.49ab 7.13 ± 1.46ab 7.69 ± 2.93ab 13.63 ± 0.78ab 16.65 ± 4.99a 7.10 ± 1.97ab
4 Hexanal 799 801 RI, MS 5 green, fatty 24.81 ± 0.90e 18.46 ± 2.58e 25.89 ± 0.21e 84.22 ± 13.68de 139.49 ± 34.65de 173.67 ± 44.44d 449.70 ± 14.47c 447.35 ± 55.16c 406.86 ± 32.76c 711.05 ± 26.79b 970.46 ± 100.58a 995.49 ± 154.15a
5 Heptanal 902 903 RI, MS 2.8 citrus-like,green ND ND ND 4.62 ± 0.36c 6.24 ± 2.39c 7.92 ± 2.77c 44.02 ± 2.77b 44.23 ± 7.38b 48.12 ± 6.91b 78.53 ± 3.11a 79.17 ± 9.42a 86.35 ± 14.25a
6 2-Methyl-2-pentenal 829 MS 290 strawberry, fruity 9.15 ± 0.62a 6.07 ± 1.30b 4.76 ± 0.38c ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
7 Benzaldehyde 968 960 RI, MS 751 sweet, almond, caramel 15.73 ± 0.25cde 13.60 ± 2.86de 12.32 ± 0.39e 23.30 ± 2.12a 18.95 ± 3.73abc 22.66 ± 1.89ab 19.27 ± 0.01abc 15.31 ± 2.37cde 18.29 ± 2.34bcd 21.02 ± 1.66ab 19.09 ± 1.68abc 17.88 ± 1.40bcd
8 Octanal 1019 1006 RI, MS 0.59 fatty, soapy, green ND ND ND ND ND ND 155.36 ± 12.40b 140.90 ± 8.91b 164.02 ± 18.83b 253.20 ± 5.64a 258.70 ± 37.28a 239.60 ± 8.27a
9 (E)-2-Octenal 1079 1060 RI, MS 3 green, nutty, fatty ND ND ND 5.44 ± 0.17e 7.02 ± 0.35e 8.31 ± 3.57e 15.01 ± 0.25d 18.36 ± 1.44cd 23.71 ± 3.31b 22.80 ± 0.46bc 29.46 ± 4.51a 32.15 ± 0.20a
10 Nonanal 1130 1104 MS 1.1 fatty, citrus-like, green 25.56 ± 1.27f 18.64 ± 2.96f 12.49 ± 0.72f 16.05 ± 0.18f 24.97 ± 3.58f 19.62 ± 3.60f 229.29 ± 21.96de 224.15 ± 10.70e 284.94 ± 22.76cd 366.76 ± 1.76b 456.81 ± 69.99a 329.39 ± 13.08bc
11 Decanal 1233 1209 RI, MS 3 soapy, orange peel, butter ND ND ND ND 3.13 ± 0.39d ND 65.95 ± 8.31c 54.00 ± 1.32c 64.94 ± 4.08c 127.84 ± 8.41a 97.58 ± 14.38b 85.63 ± 11.29b
12 (E,E)-2,4-Nonadienal 1239 1217 RI, MS 0.1 fatty, waxy, green ND ND ND ND 1.57 ± 1.04d ND 9.34 ± 0.35b 6.32 ± 0.75c 8.49 ± 2.46bc 6.94 ± 0.55c 10.74 ± 0.45abc 11.66 ± 1.38a
13 (E)-2-Decenal 1283 1262 RI, MS 17 citrus-like ND ND ND 4.81 ± 0.11e 4.76 ± 1.37e 6.75 ± 1.67e 34.88 ± 3.92d 39.84 ± 1.56d 52.61 ± 6.01bc 84.57 ± 4.60a 42.08 ± 2.12cd 62.79 ± 11.80b
14 (E)-innamaldehyde 1286 1283 RI, MS 750 cinnamon, spicy 78.51 ± 10.94bc 72.45 ± 15.77bcde 67.23 ± 3.04bcde 36.19 ± 2.38e 50.94 ± 11.30cde 40.73 ± 10.91de 62.61 ± 43.12bcde 78.04 ± 3.46bcd 65.76 ± 2.06bcde 121.74 ± 8.53a 96.83 ± 3.25ab 116.71 ± 14.49a
15 (E,E)-2,4-Decadienal 1344 1317 MS 0.027 fried, chicken fat 9.56 ± 0.08ef 7.77 ± 1.44f 8.99 ± 0.42ef 17.07 ± 1.30cd 14.86 ± 0.20de 23.92 ± 6.89ab 21.08 ± 0.82bc 16.82 ± 0.20cd 17.07 ± 0.20cd 29.76 ± 1.89a 16.72 ± 2.60cd 21.10 ± 3.84bc
16 2-Butyl-2-octenal 1381 MS ND ND ND ND ND ND 79.14 ± 8.82b 32.25 ± 1.16c 33.44 ± 9.34c 147.33 ± 18.01a 32.35 ± 4.34cd 47.19 ± 9.14c
17 2-Heptanone 891 895 RI, MS 140 soapy, fruity ND ND ND 3.66 ± 1.01ef ND 5.33 ± 2.11de 14.17 ± 0.17b 7.86 ± 0.97cde 8.73 ± 0.51cd 22.03 ± 5.01a 11.04 ± 1.46bc 22.42 ± 2.32a
18 Dihydrothiophen-3(2H)-one 957 MS creamy, onion, garlic 51.70 ± 0.07a 45.23 ± 9.63ab 39.34 ± 0.59bcd 43.19 ± 4.51abc 30.26 ± 3.97def 38.01 ± 1.28bcd 32.53 ± 0.24cdef 28.05 ± 3.59cdef 26.23 ± 0.78ef 25.21 ± 4.52ef 33.64 ± 5.54cde 21.88 ± 8.22f
19 3-Octene-2-one 1060 1040 RI, MS 6.7 nutty ND ND ND 9.84 ± 2.04de 13.18 ± 2.57d 11.06 ± 2.17de 95.87 ± 5.09b 54.91 ± 5.31c 60.91 ± 4.48c 140.69 ± 0.54a 88.45 ± 10.44b 147.32 ± 8.63a
20 (E,E)-3,5-Octadien-2-one 1093 MS 100 fruity, fatty, mushroom ND ND 9.69 ± 0.53ab 10.28 ± 0.36ab 11.65 ± 0.31a 8.07 ± 4.05bc 5.75 ± 0.96c 5.73 ± 0.07c 5.66 ± 0.36c ND 6.31 ± 0.60c ND
21 3,5-Octadien-2-one 1117 1095 RI, MS ND ND 8.55 ± 0.81c 17.78 ± 1.54a 17.71 ± 2.45a 13.96 ± 6.28ab 13.10 ± 0.25abc 12.47 ± 0.61abc 10.43 ± 0.4bc 12.04 ± 2.77bc 11.98 ± 0.67bc 12.65 ± 0.83abc
22 Ethanone 1205 MS 21 bitter almond ND 3.54 ± 0.55d 5.13 ± 2.07d 8.85 ± 0.23c 8.32 ± 1.64c 10.67 ± 2.48bc 15.81 ± 0.46a 10.99 ± 0.14bc 9.45 ± 2.07c 13.19 ± 0.30ab 10.77 ± 0.14bc 11.01 ± 0.93bc
23 Ar-Tumerone 1670 MS 448.33 ± 82.26abcd 346.59 ± 12.26cdef 373.43 ± 28.39bcde 298.23 ± 42.21efg 214.52 ± 35.51g 239.27 ± 20.70fg 513.69 ± 114.08a 466.60 ± 5.33abc 389.80 ± 52.72bcde 538.32 ± 25.29a 469.43 ± 13.12ab 339.08 ± 48.66def
24 Tumerone 1674 MS 362.85 ± 79.60a 262.99 ± 4.39b 145.27 ± 13.84c 63.23 ± 6.76de 46.41 ± 23.27e 45.52 ± 0.36e 131.73 ± 28.87cd 111.30 ± 2.69cde 95.20 ± 28.91cde 99.42 ± 0.45cde 164.88 ± 35.64c 70.48 ± 24.97de
25 Germacrone 1699 MS 8.60 ± 3.07cde 6.86 ± 0.80de 6.82 ± 1.14de 6.15 ± 0.65de 3.81 ± 1.10e 4.32 ± 0.25e 12.89 ± 5.30bc 7.91 ± 0.73cde 8.79 ± 1.23cde 19.39 ± 2.62a 14.60 ± 1.81ab 11.32 ± 2.23bcd
26 Curlone 1705 MS 221.5 ± 45.05a 171.80 ± 2.66abc 140.55 ± 13.08bcd 105.81 ± 16.47def 70.14 ± 15.28f 78.81 ± 9.94ef 155.11 ± 39.55bcd 158.49 ± 2.52bcd 128.93 ± 19.32cde 187.60 ± 5.36ab 152.67 ± 7.22bcd 130.26 ± 30.44cde
27 Eucalyptol 1045 1030 RI, MS 1.1 mint, sweet 17.55 ± 0.88bc 13.52 ± 2.18c 15.57 ± 1.43c 15.18 ± 2.43c 16.27 ± 2.67c 18.56 ± 6.08bc 19.16 ± 4.29bc 27.98 ± 2.09a 30.43 ± 0.97ab 27.51 ± 6.88a 29.30 ± 0.01a 24.69 ± 1.71ab
28 Linolool 1125 1100 RI, MS 6 floral, lavender 127.83 ± 9.54b 92.13 ± 8.03cd 124.45 ± 20.06bc 80.94 ± 6.42d 81.09 ± 3.23d 76.18 ± 34.17d 136.68 ± 2.84b 133.73 ± 4.64b 152.87 ± 1.48ab 124.72 ± 1.61bc 178.40 ± 16.98a 130.43 ± 6.88b
29 4-Terpineol 1197 1179 RI, MS 1200 turpentine, nutmeg 12.70 ± 1.92ab 8.78 ± 0.23b 11.74 ± 0.56ab 9.80 ± 1.17ab 10.96 ± 1.13ab 12.41 ± 4.76ab 9.83 ± 0.40ab 14.62 ± 0.35a 14.93 ± 0.49a 8.98 ± 0.17b 13.60 ± 2.62ab 12.29 ± 3.32ab
30 Ethyl Maltol 1221 MS sweet, bready 102.36 ± 15.55bcd 88.57 ± 20.62de 107.90 ± 2.19bcd 85.48 ± 0.95de 82.35 ± 28.68de 63.64 ± 1.02e 134.76 ± 23.13ab 101.36 ± 3.17bcd 94.76 ± 3.65cde 147.46 ± 14.98a 115.26 ± 14.88abcd 127.84 ± 2.33abc
31 Limonene 1043 MS 200 lemon, citrus-like 7.39 ± 0.82ab 5.34 ± 1.22b 6.93 ± 0.68ab 7.53 ± 1.14ab 5.09 ± 1.54b 6.33 ± 2.72b 6.12 ± 2.97b 10.77 ± 0.83a 7.38 ± 0.55ab 9.09 ± 2.08ab 8.73 ± 0.90ab 8.49 ± 0.11ab
32 (-)-β-Caryophyllene 1408 1467 MS 64 woody, irritating 8.06 ± 1.86de 7.04 ± 1.06e 7.80 ± 1.53de 6.46 ± 0.85e 7.39 ± 0.35de 4.85 ± 0.60e 25.70 ± 4.33a 15.43 ± 0.37bc 12.73 ± 4.19cd 27.51 ± 3.57a 18.34 ± 2.08b 17.73 ± 0.53bc
33 (1E,4E,8E)-α-Humulene 1448 1467 RI, MS 160 woody 7.45 ± 0.73cde 5.50 ± 0.76ef 5.69 ± 1.04def 3.43 ± 0.43fg 4.23 ± 0.11fg 2.87 ± 0.05g 10.98 ± 1.70ab 8.55 ± 0.10bc 8.20 ± 2.24cd 11.65 ± 1.11a 8.85 ± 0.81bc 8.21 ± 0.72cd
34 (E)-β-farnesene 1457 1391 MS 3.55 ± 0.70cd 2.66 ± 0.65d 2.55 ± 1.52d 2.87 ± 0.59d 2.49 ± 0.26d 1.52 ± 0.50d 7.08 ± 1.10ab 5.98 ± 0.03b 6.10 ± 0.92b 8.46 ± 1.40a 5.74 ± 1.13b 5.62 ± 0.50bc
35 (Z)-β-Farnesene 1460 1445 RI, MS 2.37 ± 0.53def 1.90 ± 0.22f ND 1.49 ± 0.33f 2.03 ± 0.01ef ND 9.42 ± 1.93b 5.82 ± 0.01c 4.62 ± 2.28cde 16.70 ± 1.87a 4.66 ± 0.86cd 6.15 ± 0.45c
36 β-Curcumene 1479 MS 4.34 ± 1.85de 4.00 ± 0.03e 4.22 ± 1.01e 3.55 ± 0.35e 3.40 ± 0.41e 2.77 ± 0.38e 11.72 ± 1.92a 9.37 ± 0.48abc 7.86 ± 2.85bc 10.63 ± 1.27ab 10.19 ± 0.17abc 7.36 ± 0.30cd
37 α-Curcumene 1483 1553 MS 47.04 ± 9.46c 38.37 ± 8.57c 54.95 ± 14.99c 52.24 ± 4.92c 51.11 ± 3.32c 41.49 ± 12.66c 188.37 ± 34.34a 125.54 ± 1.22b 106.25 ± 41.20b 191.35 ± 22.40a 136.90 ± 9.13b 108.12 ± 0.42b
38 α-Zingiberene 1494 1494 RI, MS 77.43 ± 28.13abc 68.18 ± 5.39bc 105.50 ± 0.47a 19.51 ± 1.57de 21.54 ± 4.88de 15.20 ± 3.90e 96.82 ± 15.85ab 57.50 ± 0.50c 50.93 ± 26.44cd 68.26 ± 12.25ab 77.59 ± 16.99abc 50.46 ± 6.13cd
39 β-bisabolene 1507 1498 RI, MS 18.93 ± 7.73d 18.22 ± 2.09d 22.45 ± 4.09cd 17.09 ± 0.82d 18.44 ± 0.40d 15.17 ± 3.68d 61.63 ± 11.13a 38.64 ± 0.14b 33.03 ± 12.06bc 62.49 ± 2.68a 43.76 ± 2.00b 35.58 ± 0.91bc
40 β-Sesquiphellandrene 1523 1560 MS 90.44 ± 22.86defg 69.85 ± 14.55fg 81.68 ± 17.67efg 62.85 ± 5.76fg 60.25 ± 2.13fg 51.81 ± 14.91g 194.80 ± 36.90ab 140.84 ± 1.80bcd 113.48 ± 47.82cdef 211.56 ± 26.50a 155.06 ± 12.44bc 130.98 ± 10.31cde
41 a-Farnesene 1532 1500 MS 3.60 ± 0.51cd 2.87 ± 0.14cde 3.77 ± 1.25cd 2.99 ± 0.73cd ND 2.42 ± 0.26de 7.79 ± 1.64ab 4.34 ± 0.10cd 5.61 ± 0.45ab 10.53 ± 2.84a 7.69 ± 0.68ab 5.63 ± 1.81ab
42 Anethole 1277 MS 50 fennel, sweet 610.65 ± 33.56cd 381.75 ± 34.11e 515.68 ± 47.15d 322.46 ± 9.89ef 286.24 ± 33.38ef 247.91 ± 63.95f 635.75 ± 66.80c 623.06 ± 0.75c 660.44 ± 11.67bc 763.02 ± 36.59bc 842.13 ± 80.26a 667.14 ± 0.45bc
43 Caryophyllene oxide 1582 1573 RI, MS 410 vanilla, sweet 11.00 ± 2.68bcd 8.16 ± 0.89bcd 10.72 ± 1.70bcd 7.65 ± 0.85bcd 4.83 ± 2.08d 3.42 ± 0.23d 15.57 ± 3.40ab 8.19 ± 0.66bcd 7.39 ± 1.50cd 21.10 ± 8.15a 12.98 ± 5.03bc 9.38 ± 0.19bcd
44 3-Methylpentadecane 1572 MS ND ND ND 3.51 ± 0.37cd 1.97 ± 0.28d ND 7.12 ± 1.39b 4.24 ± 0.56c 4.27 ± 1.41c 10.76 ± 0.87a 6.94 ± 0.29b 8.88 ± 1.52ab
45 Hexadecane 1599 1600 RI, MS 500 alkanes 2.94 ± 0.74d 2.23 ± 0.19d 4.71 ± 1.58d 2.81 ± 0.31d 2.96 ± 0.13d 2.39 ± 0.47d 13.12 ± 2.77b 7.83 ± 0.71c 7.79 ± 2.08c 18.49 ± 0.78a 10.35 ± 0.31bc 9.16 ± 0.65c
46 2,6-Dimethylpyrazine 914 913 RI, MS 718 bakery, cocoa 19.08 ± 0.40d 17.67 ± 3.26d 13.51 ± 2.22d 50.42 ± 0.53b 30.42 ± 7.29c 30.27 ± 6.77c ND 16.95 ± 5.51d 32.29 ± 4.16c 72.45 ± 5.62a 12.39 ± 0.53d ND
47 2,3,5-Trimethylpyrazine 1015 1000 RI, MS 350 bakery, nutty 58.39 ± 0.85cd 56.91 ± 2.76def 64.91 ± 5.46c 85.38 ± 5.06a 67.95 ± 7.90c 84.37 ± 4.67ab 38.20 ± 10.41f 33.94 ± 3.70f 69.76 ± 9.58bc 42.39 ± 9.11ef 36.98 ± 0.68f 48.70 ± 1.47def
48 Acetylpyrazine 1038 1023 RI, MS 60 bakery 28.22 ± 0.52ab 27.99 ± 5.74ab 25.19 ± 0.78bc 35.07 ± 2.73a 28.30 ± 2.18ab 27.75 ± 6.86b 24.03 ± 0.21bc 21.49 ± 1.11bc 21.22 ± 0.24bc 21.08 ± 0.39bc 20.08 ± 1.89c 21.45 ± 2.16bc
49 2,5-Diethyl-3-methylpyrazine 1111 MS 8.6 roasted potatoes 3.35 ± 1.46cd 3.43 ± 1.14cd ND 16.09 ± 0.04b ND 15.02 ± 5.19b ND 6.12 ± 0.49c 16.80 ± 1.74ab ND 21.07 ± 2.38a ND
50 2-Methyl-3-methylsulfanylpyrazine 1187 MS 4 20.37 ± 0.66f 18.28 ± 1.76f 24.90 ± 0.10e 20.20 ± 0.57f ND ND ND 31.51 ± 1.03d 42.18 ± 1.02a 38.54 ± 1.24b 34.64 ± 2.07cd 35.24 ± 3.60bc
51 2-Isocyanatooxane 1170 MS ND ND 65.07 ± 0.92a 5.96 ± 2.66de 7.36 ± 4.32d 19.61 ± 3.49c 14.71 ± 0.26c 19.62 ± 0.32c 15.62 ± 2.58c 32.16 ± 1.45b 17.62 ± 2.59c 29.82 ± 6.92b
52 γ-Octalactone 1278 1261 RI, MS 7.95 coconut ND ND ND ND ND ND 14.05 ± 0.95b 8.76 ± 0.58c 8.27 ± 1.39c 20.35 ± 2.42a 9.43 ± 0.32c 18.75 ± 4.41a
53 γ-Nonalactone 1371 1366 RI, MS 65 ND ND ND ND ND ND 14.92 ± 1.70b 8.35 ± 0.17c 7.59 ± 1.11c 24.15 ± 2.25a 9.10 ± 1.17c 20.90 ± 6.01a
54 Triacetin 1374 MS 151.20 ± 53.92bcde 94.53 ± 14.83e 109.65 ± 13.48de 106.57 ± 9.28e 142.77 ± 50.56bcde 82.75 ± 11.62e 143.93 ± 37.26bcde 192.84 ± 22.3abc 212.52 ± 38.29ab 179.33 ± 22.12abcd 245.38 ± 13.58a 135.60 ± 5.75cde
55 Geranyl acetate 1390 1382 RI, MS 150 rose, lavender ND ND ND 3.02 ± 0.41c 3.92 ± 0.12c 2.54 ± 0.22c 19.67 ± 2.91a 13.98 ± 0.02b 14.35 ± 3.00b 10.83 ± 3.52b 19.56 ± 0.50a 12.51 ± 1.68b
Open in a new tab
a

RI was the calculated retention index. bRIcal and eAroma descriptions were available from the Flavornet and human odor space (Terry Acree & Heinrich Arn, http://flavornet.org/index.html). cID was the identification method. dThreshold value of compounds were available from a literature (Van G, L. J. 2011). ND not detected. Different superscript letters represent significant differences with other values in the same row at p < 0.05.

The volatile compounds were further processed as a cluster heat map, as shown in Fig. 3a. The heatmap's color coding progressed from green to red, while the concentration of aroma compounds went from low (green) to high (red). Longitudinally, the four groups of samples were divided into two major categories, fresh and light deteriorated samples were divided into one category, medium and serious deteriorated samples were divided into the other category. The phenomenon indicated that the volatile compounds contents of fresh and light deteriorated samples were similar, while the medium and serious deteriorated samples were corresponding to aldehydes and alkanes (Liu et al., 2021). Horizontally, aldehydes, alkanes, and olefins were divided into one category and other compounds were divided into another category. It revealed that the concentration of various volatiles differed significantly between deteriorated and fresh samples, where unfriendly flavor (e.g., aldehydes, olefins and alkanes) were higher in medium and serious deteriorated ones. Similar findings have been reported in a variety of foods (Gayoso et al., 2017, Ghorbani Gorji et al., 2019, Ma et al., 2019). Moreover, as shown in Fig. 3b, it is very obvious that chicken seasoning had their characteristic aldehydes compounds, which could be used as an important marker for the chicken seasoning. In these samples with high linoleic acid levels, hexanal was the most abundant aldehyde, followed by nonanal and octanal (Fig. 3c). As shown in Fig. 3d, good correlations (R2 = 0.959) were observed between the total aldehydes amount (y) and TOTOX (x). Among the aldehydes, first-order kinetic equation between nonpolar hexanal (R2 = 0.941) and nonanal (R2 = 0.951) amount and TOTOX during lipid oxidation of the chicken seasoning (Fig. 3d), showing that the amount of aldehydes (particularly hexanal) in chicken seasoning might be utilized to predict oxidative deterioration as TOTOX. Similar findings were reported in many additional studies on edible oils and oil-rich foods (Cao et al., 2014, Chen et al., 2022).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

(a) Heatmap analysis results of various volatile compounds in chicken seasoning. Rows represent compound classes and columns represent samples. 1: sulfur compounds, 2: aldehydes, 3: ketones, 4: alcohols and phenols, 5: olefins, 6: heterocyclic compounds, 7: alkanes, 8: pyrazines, 9: esters. Relationship of the volatile compounds (μg/kg chicken seasoning) and the odor intensity (b, c) and TOTOX (d, f).

Relationship between volatile compounds and sensory properties

The PLSR results provide further information on the sensory attributes of 55 volatile compounds. From Fig. 4a, the PLSR modelling between selected volatile and sensory attributes was presented in a two-factor model elucidating 83 % and 10 % of the difference in X (designated volatiles) and in Y (sensory attributes) respectively, with a cumulative variance contribution of 93 %, indicating that most of the information of the samples can be successfully reflected by this PLSR model (Tian et al., 2014). The fishy smell was placed below the Factor 2 axis and was not surrounded by loads, indicating that the assessed aroma compounds could not explain all of the sensory attributes. It corresponds to the sensory profile of the samples (Fig. 1a), where the fishy smell was close to 0 for all four groups. Except for the fishy, the rancid flavor was separated from the rest of the sensory properties on both sides of the Factor1 axis, indicating that rancidity was negatively correlated to chicken aroma, fat aroma, umami aroma, whole aroma and acceptability. The seven aldehydes located in the small oval on the left are the ones with the largest Factor1 axis coordinates and the closest distance to the rancid flavor, indicating that these seven aldehydes were positively correlated with rancid flavor and their increased content was responsible for the rancid flavor of the chicken seasoning. In this case, the PCCs findings had strong correlation coefficient (≥0.9) for the prediction of the seven aldehydes and the unfavorable taste and overall acceptability (Fig. 4b), demonstrating that aldehydes had a significant relationship with all sensory attributes. Similar results were also found in investigating the effects of natural ingredients on the shelf life of chicken seasoning (Tian et al., 2019). This could also explain the dominant role of lipid oxidation in chicken seasoning deterioration (Fig. 1).

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

(a) Analysis of volatile compounds and sensory properties of the four sample groups by PLSR; Code of the volatile compounds correspond to those in Table 2. (b) Heat map of PCCs between seven aldehydes and sensory properties. The compounds in the small oval on the left are, 4: hexanal, 5: heptanal, 8: octanal, 9: (E)-2-octenal, 10: nonanal, 11: decanal, 12: (E, E)-2,4-nonadienal.

Conclusions

Sensory quality deterioration of chicken seasoning was investigated using quality changes array, GC–MS and descriptive sensory analysis to approach an evaluation of the deterioration of chicken essence seasoning. It was found that the determination of indicator was a novel approach to monitor oil oxidation. They played an important role as TOTOX or POV in the oxidation assessment of lipid. In addition, good relationship between TOTOX and sensory evaluation was found. Moreover, a total of 55 compounds were identified in the chicken seasoning. On a quantitative level, aldehydes were main volatile compounds identified by GC–MS related to the deterioration of chicken essence seasoning. The correlation between unfriendly aldehyde flavor from oil oxidation and sensory attributes was determined using PLSR and PCC. There was a decent compatibility between quality changes assess, descriptive sensory analysis and GC–MS data, indicating that the TOTOX, POV and aldehyde content (especially for hexanal) has the effectiveness indicators to evaluate the quality deterioration of chicken seasoning. These results are promising in terms of the application of the chemical analyses as an objective measurement for conventional sensory evaluations or electronic tongue of the deterioration of chicken seasoning. Moreover, this finding could therefore provide an approach to evaluate quantically the shelf life of chicken seasoning and others food processing applications.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Hao-Yu Xu: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. Xiao-Wei Chen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Jun Li: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation. Yan-Lan Bi: Visualization, Supervision, Investigation, Project administration, Funding acquisition.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

This study was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NO. 32172131) and the Innovative Funds Plan of Henan University of Technology (NO. 2020ZKCJ10).

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

References

  1. Ali M.M., Hashim N., Abd Aziz S., Lasekan O. Principles and recent advances in electronic nose for quality inspection of agricultural and food products. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2020;99:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2020.02.028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Beltran E., Pla R., Yuste J., Mor-Mur M. Lipid oxidation of pressurized and cooked chicken: Role of sodium chloride and mechanical processing on TBARS and hexanal values. Meat Science. 2003;64(1):19–25. doi: 10.1016/s0309-1740(02)00132-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Brewer M.S., Vega J.D., Perkins E.G. Volatile compounds and sensory characteristics of frying fats. Journal of Food Lipids. 1999;6(1):47–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-4522.1999.tb00132.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cao J., Deng L., Zhu X.M., Fan Y., Hu J.N., Li J., Deng Z.Y. Novel approach to evaluate the oxidation state of vegetable oils using characteristic oxidation indicators. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2014;62(52):12545–12552. doi: 10.1021/jf5047656. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cao J., Jiang X., Chen Q., Zhang H., Sun H., Zhang W.M., Li C. Oxidative stabilities of olive and camellia oils: Possible mechanism of aldehydes formation in oleic acid triglyceride at high temperature. Lwt-Food Science and Technology. 2020;118 doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108858. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen X.W., Chen Y.J., Wang J.M., Guo J., Yin S.W., Yang X.Q. Phytosterol structured algae oil nanoemulsions and powders: Improving antioxidant and flavor properties. Food Function. 2016;7(9):3694–3702. doi: 10.1039/c6fo00449k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen X.W., Hu Q.H., Li X.X., Ma C.G. Systematic comparison of structural and lipid oxidation in oil-in-water and water-in-oil biphasic emulgels: Effect of emulsion type, oil-phase composition, and oil fraction. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2022;102(10):4200–4209. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.11770. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cui N., Wang G., Ma Q., Zhao T., Li R., Liang L. Effect of cold-pressed on fatty acid profile, bioactive compounds and oil oxidation of hazelnut during oxidation process. Lwt-Food Science and Technology. 2020;129 doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2020.109552. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Fang Z., Lin P., Ha M., Warner R.D. Effects of incorporation of sugarcane fibre on the physicochemical and sensory properties of chicken sausage. International Journal of Food Science & Technology. 2019;54(4):1036–1044. doi: 10.1111/ijfs.13894. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Gayoso L., Poyato C., Calvo M.I., Cavero R.Y., Ansorena D., Astiasaran I. Volatiles formation in gelled emulsions enriched in polyunsaturated fatty acids during storage: Type of oil and antioxidant. Journal of Food Science and Technology-Mysore. 2017;54(9):2842–2851. doi: 10.1007/s13197-017-2722-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ghorbani Gorji S., Calingacion M., Smyth H.E., Fitzgerald M. Comprehensive profiling of lipid oxidation volatile compounds during storage of mayonnaise. Journal of Food Science and Technology-Mysore. 2019;56(9):4076–4090. doi: 10.1007/s13197-019-03876-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hu M., Jacobsen C., editors. Oxidative stability and shelf life of foods containing oils and fats. Elsevier Inc.; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  13. Jensen S., Oestdal H., Clausen M.R., Andersen M.L., Skibsted L.H. Oxidative stability of whole wheat bread during storage. Lwt-Food Science and Technology. 2011;44(3):637–642. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2010.10.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kalua C.M., Allen M.S., Bedgood D.R., Bishop A.G., Prenzler P.D., Robards K. Olive oil volatile compounds, flavour development and quality: A critical review. Food Chemistry. 2007;100(1):273–286. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.09.059. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kwon J.H., Kwon Y., Namb K.C., Lee E.J., Ahn D.U. Effect of electron-beam irradiation before and after cooking on the chemical properties of beef, pork, and chicken. Meat Science. 2008;80(3):903–909. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.04.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Liu Y.X., Li W.D., Wang Y., Zhong K., Zhao L., Gao H.Y. Characterization of volatile compounds in ten different instant noodle seasonings by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and odor activity values. Chinese Journal of Analytical Chemistry. 2021;49(6):21104–21111. doi: 10.1016/s1872-2040(21)60105-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ma L., Liu G., Liu X. Malondialdehyde, 4-hydroxy-2-hexenal, and 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal in vegetable oils: formation kinetics and application as oxidation indicators. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology. 2019;121(7):1900040. doi: 10.1002/ejlt.201900040. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Multari S., Marsol-Vall A., Heponiemi P., Suomela J.P., Yang B. Changes in the volatile profile, fatty acid composition and other markers of lipid oxidation of six different vegetable oils during short-term deep-frying. Food Research International. 2019;122:318–329. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2019.04.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Esfarjani F., Khoshtinat K., Zargaraan A., Mohammadi-Nasrabadi F., Salmani Y., Saghafi Z., Bahmaei M. Evaluating the rancidity and quality of discarded oils in fast food restaurants. Food Science & Nutrition. 2019;7(7):2302–2311. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.1072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Sohn J.H., Ohshima T. Control of lipid oxidation and meat color deterioration in skipjack tuna muscle during ice storage. Fisheries Science. 2010;76(4):703–710. doi: 10.1007/s12562-010-0248-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Stone H, Bleibaum RN & Thomas H.A. (2012). Sensory evaluation practices (4th ed.). The Organization and Operation of a Sensory Evaluation Program (pp. 23–79). Elsevier Inc.
  22. Tian H., Li F., Qin L., Yu H., Ma X. Discrimination of chicken seasonings and beef seasonings using electronic nose and sensory evaluation. Journal of Food Science. 2014;79(11):2346–2353. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.12675. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Tian H.X., Zhang Y.J., Chen C., Qin L., Xiao L.Z., Fei Y.G., Yu H.Y. Assessment of main factor causing sensory quality defects in chicken seasoning during storage. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2018;98(15):5807–5815. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.9130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Tian H.X., Zhang Y.J., Chen C., Qin L., Xiao L.Z., Ma H.R., Yu H.Y. Effects of natural ingredients on the shelf life of chicken seasoning. Food Chemistry. 2019;293:120–126. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.03.084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Yang Z., Huang Q., Xing J.J., Guo X.N., Zhu K.X. Changes of lipids in noodle dough and dried noodles during industrial processing. Journal of Food Science. 2021;86(8):3517–3528. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.15844. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Zheng Q., Wang H., Yue L., Yan W., Guo H., Chen Z., Kong Q. Effect of irradiation on volatile compound profiles and lipid oxidation in chicken powder seasoning. Radiation Physics and Chemistry. 2022;191 doi: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2021.109851. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Zhu Y., Chen Y.P., Ayed C., Li B., Liu Y. An on-line study about consumers’ perception and purchasing behavior toward umami seasonings in China. Food Control. 2020;110 doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.107037. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Van G, L. J. (2011). Odour thresholds: compilations of odour threshold values in air, water and other media (2th ed.). Odour threshold values in water (pp. 207–379). Oliemans Punter and Partners BV.

Associated Data

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

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Articles from Food Chemistry: X are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES