Volatiles and flavor of five Turkish hazelnut varieties as evaluated by descriptive sensory analysis, electronic nose, and dynamic headspace analysis/gas chromatography-mass spectrometry
Forty‐six volatile compounds were detected by gas chromatography‐mass spectrometry, with 31 being positively identified in all hazelnuts (6 tentative and 9 unknown). Çakildak variety contained the highest content of total volatiles, followed by Palaz, Mincane, Fosa, and Tombul, with no significant d...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of food science 2004-04, Vol.69 (3), p.SNQ99-SNQ106 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | SNQ106 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | SNQ99 |
| container_title | Journal of food science |
| container_volume | 69 |
| creator | Alasalvar, C Odabasi, A.Z Demir, N Balaban, M.O Shahidi, F Cadwallader, K.R |
| description | Forty‐six volatile compounds were detected by gas chromatography‐mass spectrometry, with 31 being positively identified in all hazelnuts (6 tentative and 9 unknown). Çakildak variety contained the highest content of total volatiles, followed by Palaz, Mincane, Fosa, and Tombul, with no significant differences (P>0.05) between Tombul, Fosa, and Mincane. In total, 39, 37, 36, and 31 volatile compounds were determined for the 1st time in Tombul, (Çakildak and Mincane), Fosa, and Palaz, respectively. Descriptive sensory analysis showed that intensities of 7 flavor attributes had no significant differences (P > 0.05) among Tombul, Fosa, and Mincane. In contrast, Çakildak was rated as being significantly (P < 0.01) lower in most flavor attributes. Discriminant function analysis on the electronic nose (E‐nose) sensor data resulted in 100% correct classification of the samples into their respective varieties. Certain E‐nose sensor types correlated well with some volatile compounds. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2004.tb13382.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17739125</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>17739125</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4699-5980f1b52c814b7e75c87c7885ae36fe64c8692fb0e83b83b33e7b3969ee53b83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkdFu0zAUhiMEEmXwDFiT4Grp7DixE-6mwQZoGmLtisSNdeKerO7SONhJaXg0ng5nrYbEHZYly0ff-Y6tP4qOGZ2ysE7XU8ZFFiciYdOE0nTalYzzPJnunkQTJjMa8zxlT6MJpUkSM5bK59EL79d0vHMxiX4vbA2dqdETaJakqmFrHbEVqcwWybx398avyAp-Yd30HdmCM9iZkfYEt1D30OGSlANZotfOtN3Y5rHx1g3BCPXgjT8hWKPunG2MJo31ePIwbDk0sAmVFcLSt6DxseH0Luj1ytkNdPbOQbsa4g14T3z74Nlg54aX0bMKao-vDudRdHvxYX7-Mb76cvnp_Owq1qkoijgrclqxMkt0ztJSosx0LrXM8wyQiwpFqnNRJFVJMedl2JyjLHkhCsRsLBxFb_fe1tkfPfpObYzXWNfQoO29YlLygiVZAI__Ade2d-FLgSlSXtA8HW3v9pB21nuHlWqd2YAbFKNqzFSt1ZipGjNVY6bqkKnaheY3hwngNdSVg0Yb_9eQCSFFMg4523M_Q7LDf0xQny_ez2bXX4siOOK9w_gOd48OcPdKSC4z9e36Ut3csDld8IX6HvjXe74Cq-DOhXfdzhLKOKVFlqeS8z-PlNSi</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>194390848</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Volatiles and flavor of five Turkish hazelnut varieties as evaluated by descriptive sensory analysis, electronic nose, and dynamic headspace analysis/gas chromatography-mass spectrometry</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Alasalvar, C ; Odabasi, A.Z ; Demir, N ; Balaban, M.O ; Shahidi, F ; Cadwallader, K.R</creator><creatorcontrib>Alasalvar, C ; Odabasi, A.Z ; Demir, N ; Balaban, M.O ; Shahidi, F ; Cadwallader, K.R</creatorcontrib><description>Forty‐six volatile compounds were detected by gas chromatography‐mass spectrometry, with 31 being positively identified in all hazelnuts (6 tentative and 9 unknown). Çakildak variety contained the highest content of total volatiles, followed by Palaz, Mincane, Fosa, and Tombul, with no significant differences (P>0.05) between Tombul, Fosa, and Mincane. In total, 39, 37, 36, and 31 volatile compounds were determined for the 1st time in Tombul, (Çakildak and Mincane), Fosa, and Palaz, respectively. Descriptive sensory analysis showed that intensities of 7 flavor attributes had no significant differences (P > 0.05) among Tombul, Fosa, and Mincane. In contrast, Çakildak was rated as being significantly (P < 0.01) lower in most flavor attributes. Discriminant function analysis on the electronic nose (E‐nose) sensor data resulted in 100% correct classification of the samples into their respective varieties. Certain E‐nose sensor types correlated well with some volatile compounds.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-1147</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1750-3841</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2004.tb13382.x</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JFDSAZ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Corylus ; cultivars ; descriptive sensory analysis ; electronic nose ; flavor ; flavor attributesy ; Food industries ; food quality ; Food safety ; Fruit and vegetable industries ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; gas chromatography ; hazelnut varieties ; hazelnuts ; headspace analysis ; Mass spectrometry ; nutrient content ; Nuts ; sensors ; VOCs ; Volatile organic compounds ; volatiles</subject><ispartof>Journal of food science, 2004-04, Vol.69 (3), p.SNQ99-SNQ106</ispartof><rights>2004 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Institute of Food Technologists Apr 2004</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4699-5980f1b52c814b7e75c87c7885ae36fe64c8692fb0e83b83b33e7b3969ee53b83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4699-5980f1b52c814b7e75c87c7885ae36fe64c8692fb0e83b83b33e7b3969ee53b83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2621.2004.tb13382.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2621.2004.tb13382.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=15667628$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Alasalvar, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Odabasi, A.Z</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demir, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balaban, M.O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shahidi, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cadwallader, K.R</creatorcontrib><title>Volatiles and flavor of five Turkish hazelnut varieties as evaluated by descriptive sensory analysis, electronic nose, and dynamic headspace analysis/gas chromatography-mass spectrometry</title><title>Journal of food science</title><description>Forty‐six volatile compounds were detected by gas chromatography‐mass spectrometry, with 31 being positively identified in all hazelnuts (6 tentative and 9 unknown). Çakildak variety contained the highest content of total volatiles, followed by Palaz, Mincane, Fosa, and Tombul, with no significant differences (P>0.05) between Tombul, Fosa, and Mincane. In total, 39, 37, 36, and 31 volatile compounds were determined for the 1st time in Tombul, (Çakildak and Mincane), Fosa, and Palaz, respectively. Descriptive sensory analysis showed that intensities of 7 flavor attributes had no significant differences (P > 0.05) among Tombul, Fosa, and Mincane. In contrast, Çakildak was rated as being significantly (P < 0.01) lower in most flavor attributes. Discriminant function analysis on the electronic nose (E‐nose) sensor data resulted in 100% correct classification of the samples into their respective varieties. Certain E‐nose sensor types correlated well with some volatile compounds.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Corylus</subject><subject>cultivars</subject><subject>descriptive sensory analysis</subject><subject>electronic nose</subject><subject>flavor</subject><subject>flavor attributesy</subject><subject>Food industries</subject><subject>food quality</subject><subject>Food safety</subject><subject>Fruit and vegetable industries</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>gas chromatography</subject><subject>hazelnut varieties</subject><subject>hazelnuts</subject><subject>headspace analysis</subject><subject>Mass spectrometry</subject><subject>nutrient content</subject><subject>Nuts</subject><subject>sensors</subject><subject>VOCs</subject><subject>Volatile organic compounds</subject><subject>volatiles</subject><issn>0022-1147</issn><issn>1750-3841</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqVkdFu0zAUhiMEEmXwDFiT4Grp7DixE-6mwQZoGmLtisSNdeKerO7SONhJaXg0ng5nrYbEHZYly0ff-Y6tP4qOGZ2ysE7XU8ZFFiciYdOE0nTalYzzPJnunkQTJjMa8zxlT6MJpUkSM5bK59EL79d0vHMxiX4vbA2dqdETaJakqmFrHbEVqcwWybx398avyAp-Yd30HdmCM9iZkfYEt1D30OGSlANZotfOtN3Y5rHx1g3BCPXgjT8hWKPunG2MJo31ePIwbDk0sAmVFcLSt6DxseH0Luj1ytkNdPbOQbsa4g14T3z74Nlg54aX0bMKao-vDudRdHvxYX7-Mb76cvnp_Owq1qkoijgrclqxMkt0ztJSosx0LrXM8wyQiwpFqnNRJFVJMedl2JyjLHkhCsRsLBxFb_fe1tkfPfpObYzXWNfQoO29YlLygiVZAI__Ade2d-FLgSlSXtA8HW3v9pB21nuHlWqd2YAbFKNqzFSt1ZipGjNVY6bqkKnaheY3hwngNdSVg0Yb_9eQCSFFMg4523M_Q7LDf0xQny_ez2bXX4siOOK9w_gOd48OcPdKSC4z9e36Ut3csDld8IX6HvjXe74Cq-DOhXfdzhLKOKVFlqeS8z-PlNSi</recordid><startdate>200404</startdate><enddate>200404</enddate><creator>Alasalvar, C</creator><creator>Odabasi, A.Z</creator><creator>Demir, N</creator><creator>Balaban, M.O</creator><creator>Shahidi, F</creator><creator>Cadwallader, K.R</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Institute of Food Technologists</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QR</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200404</creationdate><title>Volatiles and flavor of five Turkish hazelnut varieties as evaluated by descriptive sensory analysis, electronic nose, and dynamic headspace analysis/gas chromatography-mass spectrometry</title><author>Alasalvar, C ; Odabasi, A.Z ; Demir, N ; Balaban, M.O ; Shahidi, F ; Cadwallader, K.R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4699-5980f1b52c814b7e75c87c7885ae36fe64c8692fb0e83b83b33e7b3969ee53b83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Corylus</topic><topic>cultivars</topic><topic>descriptive sensory analysis</topic><topic>electronic nose</topic><topic>flavor</topic><topic>flavor attributesy</topic><topic>Food industries</topic><topic>food quality</topic><topic>Food safety</topic><topic>Fruit and vegetable industries</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>gas chromatography</topic><topic>hazelnut varieties</topic><topic>hazelnuts</topic><topic>headspace analysis</topic><topic>Mass spectrometry</topic><topic>nutrient content</topic><topic>Nuts</topic><topic>sensors</topic><topic>VOCs</topic><topic>Volatile organic compounds</topic><topic>volatiles</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Alasalvar, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Odabasi, A.Z</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demir, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balaban, M.O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shahidi, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cadwallader, K.R</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Chemoreception Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of food science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Alasalvar, C</au><au>Odabasi, A.Z</au><au>Demir, N</au><au>Balaban, M.O</au><au>Shahidi, F</au><au>Cadwallader, K.R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Volatiles and flavor of five Turkish hazelnut varieties as evaluated by descriptive sensory analysis, electronic nose, and dynamic headspace analysis/gas chromatography-mass spectrometry</atitle><jtitle>Journal of food science</jtitle><date>2004-04</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>69</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>SNQ99</spage><epage>SNQ106</epage><pages>SNQ99-SNQ106</pages><issn>0022-1147</issn><eissn>1750-3841</eissn><coden>JFDSAZ</coden><abstract>Forty‐six volatile compounds were detected by gas chromatography‐mass spectrometry, with 31 being positively identified in all hazelnuts (6 tentative and 9 unknown). Çakildak variety contained the highest content of total volatiles, followed by Palaz, Mincane, Fosa, and Tombul, with no significant differences (P>0.05) between Tombul, Fosa, and Mincane. In total, 39, 37, 36, and 31 volatile compounds were determined for the 1st time in Tombul, (Çakildak and Mincane), Fosa, and Palaz, respectively. Descriptive sensory analysis showed that intensities of 7 flavor attributes had no significant differences (P > 0.05) among Tombul, Fosa, and Mincane. In contrast, Çakildak was rated as being significantly (P < 0.01) lower in most flavor attributes. Discriminant function analysis on the electronic nose (E‐nose) sensor data resulted in 100% correct classification of the samples into their respective varieties. Certain E‐nose sensor types correlated well with some volatile compounds.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1365-2621.2004.tb13382.x</doi><tpages>1</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0022-1147 |
| ispartof | Journal of food science, 2004-04, Vol.69 (3), p.SNQ99-SNQ106 |
| issn | 0022-1147 1750-3841 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17739125 |
| source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Biological and medical sciences Corylus cultivars descriptive sensory analysis electronic nose flavor flavor attributesy Food industries food quality Food safety Fruit and vegetable industries Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology gas chromatography hazelnut varieties hazelnuts headspace analysis Mass spectrometry nutrient content Nuts sensors VOCs Volatile organic compounds volatiles |
| title | Volatiles and flavor of five Turkish hazelnut varieties as evaluated by descriptive sensory analysis, electronic nose, and dynamic headspace analysis/gas chromatography-mass spectrometry |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T12%3A46%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Volatiles%20and%20flavor%20of%20five%20Turkish%20hazelnut%20varieties%20as%20evaluated%20by%20descriptive%20sensory%20analysis,%20electronic%20nose,%20and%20dynamic%20headspace%20analysis/gas%20chromatography-mass%20spectrometry&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20food%20science&rft.au=Alasalvar,%20C&rft.date=2004-04&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=SNQ99&rft.epage=SNQ106&rft.pages=SNQ99-SNQ106&rft.issn=0022-1147&rft.eissn=1750-3841&rft.coden=JFDSAZ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2004.tb13382.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E17739125%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=194390848&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |