Open Access

Evaluation of aroma profile differences between sué, sautéed, and pan-fried onions using an innovative olfactometric approach

  • Angélique Villière1, 2Email author,
  • Sarah Le Roy1, 2,
  • Catherine Fillonneau1, 2,
  • Fabrice Guillet3,
  • Hugues Falquerho4,
  • Sabine Boussely4 and
  • Carole Prost1, 2
Flavour20154:24

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13411-015-0034-0

Received: 7 January 2015

Accepted: 17 June 2015

Published: 14 July 2015

Abstract

Background

Onions (Allium cepa) are widely used as a flavor agent ingredient in culinary preparations to bring specific cooked onion notes. In this study, three traditional types of preparations—sué, sautéed, and pan-fried onions—were used to investigate their differences in aroma profile.

Results

Headspace solid phase micro-extraction (HS-SPME) and gas chromatography (GC) coupled with mass spectrometry (MS), flame ionization detection (FID), and olfactometry were used to analyze the onion preparations. The study enables to identify 66 major compounds in the preparations. Among these compounds, sulfur compounds, aldehydes, and furans were the most represented. The pan-fried onion preparation distinguishes itself by the highest number of compounds represented in a large amount. This result is consistent with this mode of cooking that combines high temperature with long cooking time and favors the formation of compounds from the Maillard reaction and lipid oxidation. In comparison, the sué and sautéed preparations contain globally fewer compounds and, for most of them, in a lower amount compared to the pan-fried preparation. An innovative olfactometric approach was performed, based on a laboratory-developed software using an aroma wheel especially designed for the study of cooked onion. It enables an intuitive, efficient, and precise characterization of odor events along elution. A statistical comparison of intensities perceived for each odor detected during olfactometric analysis was used to understand the aroma balance and nuances perceived for these three traditional onion preparations. In accordance with chromatographic results, the pan-fried onion displays the highest number of odorant zones (65) associated with higher intensity scores and notably, to an enhanced perception of some Maillard compounds. Sué and sautéed onion profiles show an analog number of odorant zones (50 and 53), but the sautéed onion displays higher intensity scores and a particular contribution from pyrazines.

Conclusions

The olfactometric approach used completes advantageously the instrumental characterization of cooked onions samples obtained by these three traditional cooking processes and reveals the essential contribution of minor compounds to the aroma of cooked onions. Particular compounds and balanced profile intensities were pointed out to explain the specific aroma nuances of traditional sué, sautéed, and pan-fried onions.

Keywords

Cooked onion Aroma profile Olfactometric software Sulfur compounds Odorant compounds

Background

Raw and cooked onions (Allium cepa) are traditionally used as a flavor agent ingredient in culinary preparations in order to spice dishes. They can bring global onion aroma to food as well as more specific cooked or caramelized notes depending on the techniques used in their preparation. The aroma profile of raw onions is dominated by sulfur-containing compounds. Among them, alk(en)yl-thiosulfinates bring a sharp pungent note to freshly cut onion [1]. These compounds are produced when onion cells are mechanically damaged, for example, by cutting, crushing, chewing, or by maceration. These processes enable an enzyme, the aliinase, initially present in the vacuole, to cut a non-volatile precursor found in cytoplasm, the S-alk(en)yl-l-cysteine-S-oxide, forming sulfenic acids and then thiosulfinates. The latter molecules are very unstable and give rise to further rearrangements leading to a wide variety of odorant compounds, such as mono-, di-, and tri-sulfur compounds, which can have a powerful sulfur or distinctive “freshly cut onions” odor [2]. Thiopropanal-S-oxide, also called the lachrymatory factor and responsible for the eye-stinging sensation, is also produced from S-alk(en)yl-l-cysteine-S-oxide precursor. This enzymatic reaction has been studied extensively over several years underlining the complex evolution of the volatile composition of raw onions [3].

Onions are often heated either for conservation or to create culinary notes. Heating processes applied to vegetables give rise to a complex evolution of the product that invariably produces additional volatile compounds through the autoxidation of some components, the thermal decomposition of others, and the initiation of Maillard-type compounds between amino acids and reducing sugars [1]. Some publications deal with the effect of cooking such as boiling, baking, frying, sterilization, and microwave treatments on the onion gas chromatography (GC) profile. As reported in these publications, the major compounds found in heated onions remain sulfur compounds such as mono-, di, tri-, tetrasulfides, thiophenes, and thiols but aldehydes, carboxylic acids, ketones, hydrocarbons, furans, pyrroles, and alcohols were also identified [48]. However, the contribution of these compounds in the perceived aroma of cooked onions was less investigated. Some polysulfides like propyl- and propenyl-containing di- and tri-sulfides were found to impact the aroma of cooked onions [9, 10]. 1-Propanethiol was also reported to contribute to the sweetness of cooked onion [11] as well as aldehydes seeming to bring a fried note to onions fried in corn oil or roasted in butter [1, 7]. However, many questions still remain to investigate. For example, if dimethylthiophenes are recognized to primarily bring the “fried onion note” in roasted onion in a study [9], another one disputes this claim [12]. The knowledge about aroma of cooked onions comes from older literature, and it is mainly based on model systems. Compounds’ contribution to onion aroma was extrapolated from odor thresholds and descriptions of pure compounds in water [9, 10]. This knowledge should be improved through recent methodologies for extraction and GC analysis. More recently, the aroma of cooked onions and the contribution of oxygenated compounds to its “sweet flavor” onion were investigated by the use of GC coupled with olfactometry [8, 13]. However, no information was given concerning neither the intensity nor the number of detections for each odor perceived so that the respective contributions of the corresponding compounds were impossible to evaluate.

Olfactometry is a valuable methodology commonly used to investigate odorant active compounds in food aroma products and notably those with complex aroma profiles such as coffees, wines, or cheeses [1416]. Considering the number of studies using this technique, little deals with the improvement of olfactometric data acquisition, although it is essential for the quality of the results. Acquisition systems found in bibliography are listed in Table 1. Despite inherent drawbacks, some olfactometric studies are still conducted with an oral transmission of judges’ sensory impressions [17]. This practice leads to many restraints and bias such as perturbation of breathing rhythm, breakdown of sensorial perceptions, and generally mobilizes an operator to capture the judges’ comments. This method can delay or complicate the recording of judge’s perception leading, for example, to a possible failure to detect odorant compounds closely eluted like isomers. It also implies to restrict olfactometry sessions to a single judge which is time-consuming [18]. To avoid some of these biases, instrumental devices were developed to acquire automatically judges’ perceptions. A pushing button was employed to record time and duration of an odor event [1924]. Finger-span systems were also developed to record the intensity perceived for an odor by using the distance between the thumb and the major finger of the judge as a representation of the odor intensity score [2527]. These tools are generally coupled with computer programs which gather duration and/or intensity data for further processing but, when they were recorded, descriptors were in most cases independently captured. Tape and digital recorders could be used to overcome the presence of an operator to record these data [19, 23, 25, 28]. They could be associated with devices such as Nose to Text software (Brechbuhler, Switzerland) or Voice Chromatogram Interface (Atas/GL Sciences, The Netherland, [29]) that merge vocal information into numerical data through a voice recognition system. However, these last appliances do not prevent perturbations associated with speaking. Besides, descriptors are often freely chosen by judges and for a same odor event, a consensus is complicated to obtain between judges. This lack of consensus is due to the difficulty for humans’ brain to link the olfactory and the semantic memories and thus, to clearly associate a word to an odor. It explains why odor identification frequently leads to a fail [30]. To come through this problem, judges can be constrained to choose a term among a suitable short list [31]. One internal acquisition software experimented this methodology by asking a judge to choose an odor category among a short list preliminarily picked and then, on a second step, to precise their choice by clicking on a more precise descriptor [32]. Despite the intuitiveness of this software induced by the use of pictures, the description of the odor is made in several steps which delay data recording and could lead to a failure to characterize closely eluted odorants. Currently, and according to literature, there is no device that, all at once, prevents judges from speaking, makes them possible to record simultaneously duration time, intensity, and descriptor for each odor event, and enables a direct processing of the data collected.
Table 1

Comparative table of current acquisition devices used to record olfactometric data

Systems of acquisition

Recording odor events parameters

Respect of breathing rhythm and continuity of sensorial perceptions

Time/duration

Intensity

Descriptor

Internal acquisition software coupled with an tape recorder [23]

x

x

 

Pushing button

 

Oral recording

 

Coconut acquisition software (R. Almanza and P. Mielle, INRA dijon) coupled to an oral recorder [20]

x

x

 

Keyboard

 

Oral recording

 

Maestro software (Chrompack, Middelburg, The Netherlands) coupled with an oral recorder [21]

x

x

 

Pushing button

 

Oral recording

 

Internal acquisition software (using Pascal language) [24]

x

?

 

Keyboard

   

Internal acquisition software using C++ language [32]

x

 

Icons at screen

 

Icons at screen

 

Internal acquisition program coupled with finger-span device (Almanza and Mielle, LRSA INRA Dijon 1990) [25, 26]

x

 

Finger span

  

Internal acquisition program coupled with a finger-span system developed by SCL Ltd. (Dunedin, New Zealand) [27]

x

 

Modified rotating finger span

  

AcquiSniff® (Biosens, France) coupled with a digital recorder [19]

x

 

Pushing button

Oral recording

Oral recording

 

Sniffer 9000 (Brechbuller, Switzerland)

x

 

Finger span

Finger span

Oral recording—Nose to Text conversion

 

Voice Chromatogram Interface (ATAS/GL Sciences, The Netherland) [29]

x

 

Mouse button

Mouse button

Oral recording—conversion to text

 

Oniris software

 

Aroma wheel interface with continuous intensity scale

 

Hence, the objective of this study was to compare aroma profiles of three traditional preparations of onions: sué, sautéed, and pan-fried onions, which are of a great industrial interest but poorly documented. Gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry, flame ionization detection, and olfactometry were used to analyze the volatile content resulting from these three modes of cooking. An innovative olfactometric approach based on a laboratory-developed device and a statistical comparison of odors intensity score was implemented to ensure an efficient comprehension of aroma nuances perceived for these traditional onion-based preparations.

Results and discussion

Chromatographic profiles of the headspace of sué, sautéed, and pan-fried onions

The present focus deals with the 66 identified compounds detected by flame ionization detection (FID) in the headspace of at least one of the three onion preparations (Table 2).
Table 2

Volatile compounds identified by GC-MS-FID in sués, sautéed, and pan-fried onions

     

Sué onion

Sautéed onion juice

Pan-fried onion juice

 
 

Compounds

CAS number

Calculated LRI

Literature LRI

Peak surface

Percent total peak area

Peak surface

Percent total peak area

Peak surface

Percent total peak area

Significance peak area

 

Total peak area

     

2.4E+07c

 

3.8E+07b

 

1.0E+08a

 

**

Carboxylic acid

            

1

Acetic acid

64

19

7

1471

1427-1479

NDb

 

NDb

 

6.8E+05a

 

***

2

Propanoic acid

79

9

4

1565

1487-1574

8.9E+04ab

 

6.6E+04b

 

1.3E+05a

 

*

3

Hexanoic acid

142

62

1

1908

1815-1938

2.4E+05b

 

2.6E+05b

 

4.1E+05a

 

*

 

Total carboxylic acid

     

3.3E+05b

1.4

3.3E+05b

0.9

1.2E+06a

1.2

***

Aldehydes

            

4

Acetaldehyde

75

7

0

707

677-744

2.5E+05b

 

5.3E+05b

 

2.4E+06a

 

***

5

Propanal

123

38

6

801

769-828

2.5E+06b

 

1.6E+06c

 

7.0E+06a

 

***

6

2-Methylpropanal

78

84

2

819

800-858

NDb

 

2.0E+05b

 

2.1E+06a

 

***

7

(E)-2-Propenal

107

2

8

852

828-864

9.2E+04b

 

6.3E+04b

 

1.5E+05a

 

***

8

Butanal

123

72

8

884

850-911

5.1E+04b

 

4.1E+04b

 

1.6E+05a

 

**

9

2-Methylbutanal

96

17

3

923

880-937

5.4E+04b

 

9.3E+05b

 

5.8E+06a

 

***

10

3-Methylbutanal

590

86

3

926

902-961

1.4E+05b

 

2.1E+06b

 

1.6E+07a

 

***

11

Pentanal

110

62

3

988

950-1003

4.1E+05b

 

4.6E+05b

 

6.9E+05a

 

**

12

Hexanal

66

25

1

1097

1067-1099

1.5E+06c

 

2.1E+06b

 

2.8E+06a

 

***

13

(E)-2-Methyl-2-butenal

497

3

0

1115

1069-1113

4.8E+04b

 

6.5E+04b

 

1.7E+06a

 

***

14

(E)-2-Methyl-2-pentenal

623

36

9

1180

1143-1177

4.1E+05b

 

2.9E+05b

 

1.7E+06a

 

***

15

Heptanal

111

71

7

1198

1174-1214

1.8E+05b

 

2.7E+05a

 

1.6E+05b

 

*

16

Octanal

124

13

0

1306

1274-1340

1.4E+05c

 

2.7E+05b

 

4.7E+05a

 

***

17

(E)-2-Heptenal

18829

55

5

1350

1313-1332

2.6E+05b

 

6.3E+05a

 

7.7E+05a

 

*

18

Nonanal

124

19

6

1416

1376-1423

2.00E+05

 

3.2E+05

 

4.1E+05

 

NS

19

(E)-2-Octenal

2363

89

5

1462

1424-1467

2.30E+05

 

2.8E+05

 

3.5E+05

 

NS

20

Benzaldehyde

100

52

7

1573

1488-1585

2.1E+05c

 

4.2E+05b

 

6.7E+05a

 

**

21

(E,E)-2,4-Decadienal

25152

84

5

1876

1763-1858

3.4E+05b

 

5.7E+05a

 

6.0E+05a

 

**

 

Total aldehydes

     

7.0E+06c

29.8b

1.1E+07b

29.4b

4.4E+07a

43.7a

***

Ketones

            

22

2-Propanone

67

64

1

823

820-858

7.6E+05c

 

1.1E+06b

 

1.3E+06a

 

**

23

2-Butanone

78

93

3

910

881-913

3.1E+04b

 

4.1E+04b

 

2.0E+05a

 

***

24

2,3-Butanedione

431

3

8

980

975-1000

NDb

 

NDb

 

2.6E+05a

 

***

25

2,3-Pentanedione

600

14

6

1065

973-1082

2.1E+04b

 

4.9E+04b

 

2.8E+05a

 

***

26

2-Undecanone

112

12

9

1635

1570-1628

1.60E+05

 

1.7E+05

 

2.2E+05

 

NS

27

2-Tridecanone

593

8

8

1864

1783-1816

1.5E+05a

 

1.2E+05a

 

NDb

 

***

 

Total Ketones

     

1.1E+06c

4.7

1.5E+06b

3.9

2.3E+06a

2.3

***

Hydrocarbons

            

28

Pentane

109

66

0

500

500

3.60E+05

 

5.2E+05

 

5.7E+05

 

NS

29

Hexane

110

54

3

600

600

5.1E+04b

 

1.3E+05a

 

4.5E+04b

 

**

30

Cyclopentane

287

92

3

634

/

8.20E+05

 

7.2E+05

 

8.3E+04

 

NS

31

1-Octene

111

66

0

859

822-892

4.9E+04b

 

7.8E+04a

 

8.8E+04a

 

**

32

Decane

124

18

5

1000

1000

8.00E+04

 

1.3E+05

 

1.1E+05

 

NS

33

Dodecane

112

40

3

1193

1200

7.4E+04b

 

4.9E+05a

 

8.2E+04b

 

***

34

Tetradecane

629

59

4

1400

1400

NDb

 

8.4E+04a

 

NDb

 

***

 

Total Hydrocarbons

     

1.40E+06

6.08a

2.1E+06

5.7a

9.7E+05

1.0b

NS

Sulfur compounds

            

35

Methanethiol

74

93

1

689

643-699

3.1E+04c

 

6.0E+04b

 

1.8E+05a

 

***

36

Dimethyl sulfide

75

18

3

758

724-777

4.1E+04b

 

3.5E+04b

 

4.7E+05a

 

***

37

1-Propanethiol

107

3

9

843

817-845

7.8E+04c

 

1.5E+05b

 

3.0E+05a

 

***

38

(Z)-1-Propenyl methyl sulfide

52195

40

1

1003

1006

NDb

 

NDb

 

1.2E+05a

 

***

39

(E)-1-Propenyl methyl sulfide

42848

6

6

1028

1006

5.5E+04b

 

6.2E+04b

 

1.3E+05a

 

***

40

1-Pentanethiol

110

66

7

1055

1039-1055

4.4E+04c

 

6.7E+04b

 

8.0E+04a

 

***

41

Dimethyl disulfide

624

92

0

1096

1057-1120

NDb

 

NDb

 

8.5E+05a

 

***

42

2-Methylthiophene

554

14

3

1112

1078-1120

NDb

 

NDb

 

5.7E+04a

 

***

43

3-Methyltiophene

616

44

4

1139

1093-1158

NDb

 

5.0E+04b

 

2.1E+05a

 

***

44

2,5-Dimethylthiophene

638

2

8

1212

1187-1248

2.1E+05b

 

3.0E+05b

 

9.1E+05a

 

***

45

3,4-Dimethylthiophene

632

15

5

1215

1240-1257

1.5E+05c

 

3.0E+05b

 

6.3E+05a

 

***

46

Methyl propyl disulfide

2179

60

4

1257

1213-1243

1.3E+05b

 

1.9E+05b

 

5.3E+05a

 

***

47

2,4-Dimethylthiophene

638

0

6

1278

1183-1264

1.5E+06c

 

3.6E+06b

 

1.1E+07a

 

***

48

(Z)-1-Propenyl methyl disulfide

23838

18

8

1292

1245-1273

7.8E+05b

 

1.5E+06b

 

4.3E+06a

 

***

49

(E)-1-Propenyl methyl disulfide

5905

47

5

1318

1268-1297

8.7E+05b

 

2.4E+06b

 

1.2E+07a

 

***

50

Dipropyl disulfide

629

19

6

1411

1370-1396

3.4E+05a

 

1.8E+05b

 

1.1E+05b

 

***

51

Dimethyl trisulfide

3658

80

8

1426

1370-1427

1.5E+05b

 

4.9E+05b

 

2.5E+06a

 

***

52

(Z)-1-Propenyl propyl disulfide

23838

20

2

1451

1404-1407

7.3E+05a

 

6.1E+05a

 

4.0E+05b

 

*

53

(E)-1-Propenyl propyl disulfide

5905

46

4

1474

1410-1447

1.20E+06

 

1.1E+06

 

1.3E+06

 

NS

54

Methional

3268

49

3

1490

1448-1479

NDb

 

3.2E+05b

 

4.1E+05a

 

***

55

Methyl propyl trisulfide

17619

36

2

1586

1494-1521

4.20E+05

 

5.5E+05

 

6.8E+05

 

NS

56

Dipropyl trisulfide

6028

61

1

1737

1636-1738

2.5E+05a

 

2.0E+05b

 

1.5E+05c

 

***

57

3,5-Diethyl-1,2,4-trithiolane

54644

28

9

1816

1744-1762

4.5E+05a

 

3.2E+05ab

 

2.5E+05b

 

*

 

Total sulfur compounds

     

7.4E+06b

31.4b

1.2E+07b

32.2b

3.8E+07a

37.7a

***

Furans

            

58

2-Methylfuran

534

22

5

877

843-876

8.6E+04b

 

1.0E+05ab

 

1.4E+05a

 

*

59

2,4-Dimethylfuran

3710

43

8

976

943-958

2.9E+06a

 

3.68E+06a

 

1.64E+05b

 

***

60

2-Pentylfuran

3777

69

3

1242

1236-1243

4.1E+05ab

 

6.4E+05a

 

3.0E+05b

 

**

61

Furfural

98

1

1

1494

1384-1493

1.3E+05c

 

1.4E+06b

 

2.0E+06a

 

***

62

2-Acetylfuran

1192

62

7

1544

1475-1538

NDc

 

1.2E+05b

 

2.0E+05a

 

***

63

5-Methylfurfural

620

2

0

1617

1542-1608

NDb

 

3.4E+05a

 

2.5E+05a

 

***

64

2-Furanmethanol

98

0

0

1695

1636-1693

6.3E+05b

 

1.1E+06a

 

1.3E+06a

 

*

 

Total furans

     

4.16E+06b

17.6

7.4E+06a

19.7

4.4E+06b

4.4

***

Pyrrole

            

65

2-Acetylpyrrole

1072

83

9

2068

1935-2066

NDb

0.0b

NDb

0.0b

5.0E+06a

0.5a

***

Alcohol

            

66

Ethanol

64

17

5

940

900-956

3.4E+05b

1.4

4.6E+05b

1.2

9.3E+05a

0.9

*

 

Total non identified compounds

     

1.78E+06c

7.5ab

2.68E+06b

7.1b

8.26E+06a

8.3a

***

Compounds in italics are those not confirmed by all means of identification and therefore considered as tentatively identified. Asterisks indicate differences between peak area values of onion preparations with a significance according to one-way analysis of variance *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001. NS indicates no differences between peak area values of onion preparations according to one-way analysis of variance. Different letters (a, b, c) between columns indicate significant differences in the peak area values of onion preparations according to least significant difference test (p ≤ 0.05)

The sum of the unknown compounds’ FID peak areas is less than 9 % in each preparation and is related to minor peaks. Identified compounds belong to various chemical families: 1 alcohol, 18 aldehydes, 3 carboxylic acids, 7 furans, 7 hydrocarbons, 6 ketones, 1 pyrrole, and 23 sulfur compounds. Most compounds are detected in the three preparations, but their abundance in terms of FID peak area is different. For 58 out of the 66 identified compounds, FID peak areas differ significantly between at least two modes of cooking (p ≤ 0.05). The total peak area (TPA) detected in the pan-fried preparation is more than four times higher and 2.5 higher compared to the TPA detected in the sué and sautéed preparations, respectively, reflecting a greater quantity of volatile compounds generated in onions by pan frying. Forty compounds are detected in a significantly greater amount in the pan-fried preparation compared to both sué and sautéed ones confirming a real distinction of the pan-fried preparation. In addition, 26 compounds are found in significantly different amounts between sué and sautéed preparations showing a difference between these two modes of cooking.

Sulfur compounds are one of the most represented chemical families in the three onion preparations. Most of them were previously reported in raw [6, 3336] and/or heated onions [48, 13]. The TPA of sulfur compounds detected is between three and five times higher in the pan-fried onion preparation than in sautéed and sué onion preparations, respectively. According to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) carried out on peak areas of each of these compounds, their amount is, for most of them, significantly higher in the headspace of pan-fried onion preparation than in the two other preparations.

Among sulfur compounds, 2,4-dimethylthiophene is one of the most detected compounds in the headspace of the samples (between 6.2 and 11.3 % of the TPA). This compound, as well as 2,5- and 3,4-dimethylthiophenes detected to a lesser extent, increases slightly from sué to sautéed preparations and then, substantially from sautéed to pan-fried ones. They may originate from the thermal conversion of propenyl methyl disulfides and propenyl propyl disulfides [9] or from a Maillard system involving cysteine and ribose [37]. 2- and 3-Methylthiophenes were only detected in pan-fried onion. These compounds were found in some processed vegetal material like roasted sesame seeds [38], but according to our knowledge, they have never been reported in neither raw nor cooked onions. Their origin in onion is unclear, but previous studies led in model media suggest that they could issue from heated cysteine or thiamine [3941] or from a Maillard system involving cysteine and ribose [37].

Alk(en)yl mono-, di-, and tri-sulfides were detected in large numbers in the headspace of each sample and were all previously identified in raw [6, 3336, 42] and/or cooked onions [48, 13]. These compounds were previously found to be the major volatile components in onion oil obtained by steam distillation [9, 10]. (Z)- and (E)-1-Propenyl methyl- and (Z)- and (E)-1-propenyl propyl-disulfides are among the most detected sulfides in the three preparations (between 1.3 and 12.2 % of the TPA). Dimethyl sulfide, (Z) and (E)-1-propenyl methyl sulfide, dimethyl disulfide, methyl propyl disulfide, (Z) and (E)-1-propenyl methyl disulfide, and dimethyl trisulfide are detected in significantly larger amounts in the pan-fried onion preparation compared to the other ones. Conversely, dipropyl disulfide, dipropyl trisulfide, and (Z)-1-propenyl propyl disulfide are in greater quantity in the headspace of sué onions than in sautéed and pan-fried ones. (E)-1-Propenyl propyl disulfide and methyl propyl trisulfide are detected in similar amounts in the three preparations. Alk(en)yl mono-, di-, and tri-sulfides originated from a series of reactions involving, in its first stage, the enzymatic reaction of aliinase on S-alk(en)yl-l-cysteine-S-oxide giving consecutively sulfenic acids, thiosulfinates, and finally mono- and polysulfides [2]. As mentioned above, some of these compounds can be further involved in the formation of dimethylthiophenes [9] which could be an hypothesis to explain their respective amount in the three types of preparations.

Three thiols: methanethiol, 1-propanethiol, and 1-pentanethiol, were identified in each sample (<0.5 % of the TPA). Their detected amounts increase from sué to sautéed onions and to pan-fried onions. Alkanethiols could be derived from interactions of Maillard reactions and lipids [37]. Methanethiol and propanethiol were previously found in raw [6, 34, 42] and cooked onions [48, 13], but to our knowledge, pentanethiol has never been reported in onions. However, this compound has already been identified in the volatile composition of chive (Allium schoenoprasum L.) [38]. Methanethiol is known to come from the degradation of methionine during Strecker reaction [43].

Methional was only detected in the headspace of the pan-fried onion preparation (0.1 % of the TPA). It is also known to come from degradation of methionine during Strecker reaction [43].

One trithiolane: 3,5-diethyl-1,2,4-trithiolane, was also detected in the samples. Its amount increased from the sué to the sautéed preparation and from the sautéed to the pan-fried preparation. This compound can be produced in onions from the reaction between acetaldehyde and hydrogen sulfide [43].

Eighteen aldehydes were identified in the headspace of the three onion preparations: acetaldehyde, propanal, 2-methylpropanal, 2-propenal, butanal, 2-methylbutanal, 3-methylbutanal, pentanal, (E)-2-methyl-2-butenal, (E)-2-methyl-2-pentenal, heptanal, octanal, (E)-2-heptenal, nonanal, (E)-2-octenal, benzaldehyde, and (E,E)-2.4-decadienal. Their TPAs range from 29 to 30 % in the sautéed and sué onions samples up to 43.8 % in the pan-fried samples. Most of them are detected in higher amounts in the pan-fried onion headspace compared to sué and sautéed ones. Propanal was reported as being one of the most important aroma components in raw onions [44]. Actually, this compound is highly detected in the three onion preparations. It originates from the lachrymatory factor’s decomposition. In raw onions, two molecules of propanal can further generate (E)-2-methyl-2-pentenal through aldol condensation [1]. A similar condensation of propanal and acetaldehyde can produce (E)-2-methyl-2-butenal which can be further reduced into 2-methylbutanal [44]. Acetaldehyde, propanal, (E)-2-propenal, 2-methylbutanal, 3-methylbutanal, 2-methylpropanal, and benzaldehyde are known to be Maillard reaction products, coming from Strecker degradation of corresponding amino acids [37], and except (E)-2-propenal and 2-methylpropanal, they all have been previously detected in heated onions [5, 6]. However, other chemical pathways can be involved in the formation of these compounds since acetaldehyde and 2-methylbutanal have also been reported in raw onions [6, 34]. Thermal degradation of lipids is another reaction which can produce numerous examples of the aldehydes detected in the present study (acetaldehyde, propanal, butanal, pentanal, hexanal, heptanal, (E)-2-heptenal, octanal, nonanal, (E)-2-octenal, and (E,E)-2,4-decadienal) through oxidation of linoleic and oleic acids which are present in sunflower oil [37, 44]. However, heptanal, (E)-2-octenal, and (E)-2-heptenal were also found in the volatile composition of onions heated without fat addition [5] which indicates that other reactions can produce aldehydes in onions and notably, endogenous enzymatic reactions [45].

Furans are compounds mainly detected in the onion preparations. Their peak areas represent up to 19.7 % of the TPA in the sautéed samples. Furfural, 5-methylfurfural, 2-furanmethanol, and 2-acetylfuran were previously reported in cooked onion. They are known to be involved in Maillard-type reactions of the sugars present in onions [46]. However, 2,4-dimethylfuran which is mainly detected in the three onion preparations and 2-methylfuran have never been reported in either cooked or raw onions and their origin remains unclear. 2-Pentylfuran, previously reported in processed onions [4, 7], could originate from thermal degradation of lipids [47] but could also originate from the thermal interaction of 2,4-decadienal with either cysteine or glutathione [37]. Hydrocarbons were also found in the volatile composition of the three cooked onion samples and, to our knowledge, only dodecane and tetradecane were previously detected in cooked onions [46]. Except cyclopentane, all hydrocarbons found in this study were detected in the volatile composition of oxidized sunflower oil so that oxidative degradation of the oil could be a possible source for these compounds [47, 48]. Hexane, dodecane, and tetradecane were detected in a significantly larger amount in the sautéed onion preparation.

2-Propanone, 2-butanone, 2,3-pentanedione, 2-undecanone, and 2-tridecanone identified in the present study were largely reported in the volatile composition of raw [6, 36, 42] or heated onions [6, 7]. Conversely, as far as we know, 2,3-butanedione has never been pointed out in the volatile composition of neither raw nor cooked onions, but this compound could originate from the Maillard reaction as well as 2,3-pentanedione [49]. Odd-chain ketones 2-undecanone and 2-tridecanone were previously reported in raw onions [6]. Although the function of these methyl ketones has not been reported in onions, these metabolites are present in tomato trichomes and confer insect resistance against a major agricultural pest, spiders [5053]. The reactions by which methyl ketones are synthesized in plants have not been reported, but it has been hypothesized that these compounds could be synthesized either from beta-oxidation of fatty acids or by direct oxidation of hydrocarbons [54]. However, as far as we know, the origin of 2-propanone and 2-butanone is not clearly established in raw or cooked onions. The amounts of ketones detected in the headspace of the samples tend to increase in pan-fried preparation compared to the two other samples except for 2-undecanone which remains at equivalent amounts in each sample and for 2-tridecanone which is not detected in the pan-fried onions sample.

Acetic, propanoic, and hexanoic acids were identified in, at least, one of the onion preparations in amounts representing less than 1.5 % of TPA. To our knowledge, they have never been reported in raw onions but they were reported in the volatile composition of roasted onions [6]. This suggests that possible pathways for the formation of some of these compounds could be the thermal degradation of onion or sunflower oil [48]. Notably, hexanoic acid was mentioned to issue from thermal degradation of (E,E)-2,4-decadienal [44]. All acids were detected in significantly higher amounts in the headspace of the pan-fried onion preparation compared to the two other samples.

Ethanol was detected in low amounts, less than 2 % of TPA, in the headspace of the three onion preparations. This compound was previously identified in raw [6] and cooked onions [6, 13], but its origin in onion is unclear. It was detected in significantly higher amounts in the pan-fried onion preparation than in the other two.

2-Acetylpyrrole was detected in low amount (0.5 % of TPA) in the headspace of pan-fried onion samples solely. This compound occurs in various roasted products and issues from Maillard reaction [55]. It was previously detected in onions cooked by various processes [8, 13, 54].

A principal component analysis (Fig. 1), performed on peak areas of detected volatiles which undergo significant variation between at least two samples, illustrates the characteristics of each preparation regarding their chemical composition.
Fig. 1

Principal component analysis performed on the volatile compounds identified in sué, sautéed, and pan-fried onion. a- Score plot from onion preparations. b- Loading plot for volatile compounds (numbers correspond to those associated with compounds in Table 2

In accordance with statements reported above, the headspace of pan-fried onion sample is characterized by higher amounts of numerous compounds which is consistent for that preparation that combines high-temperature and long-time cooking and favors notably Maillard reaction and lipid oxidation. Conversely, the headspace of sué and sautéed preparations contains globally less compounds. However, the preparation of sué onion includes greater amounts of some compounds which are known to issue from enzymatic reactions: dipropyl disulfide, dipropyl trisulfide, 3,5-diethyl-1,2,4-trithiolane, and (Z)-1-propenyl propyl disulfide. This last compound is known to be an intermediate in dimethylthiophene formation [9]. Therefore, this result suggests that these three other sulfur compounds could be also involved as intermediates in further reactions. The headspace of the sautéed preparation is characterized by greater amounts of pentylfuran and heptanal coming from lipid oxidation, hexane, dodecane, and tetradecane, which were hypothesized to come from oxidation of lipids, as well as 2,4-dimethylfuran whose origin is unknown.

Comparison of the olfactometric profiles of sué, sautéed, and pan-fried onions

The laboratory-developed software used to acquire olfactometric data succeeds in permitting a very intuitive categorization and rating of odors perceived by judges. The results of the olfactometric study are presented in Table 3.
Table 3

Olfactometric profiles of sués, sautéed, and pan-fried onions

LRI experiment

Compound

CAS number

Poles and descriptors (in brackets) most cited by judges

Identification

Sué onion

Sauteed onion

Pan-fried onion

Significance

LRI in literature

Compound odor description in the literature

Detection

Average score

Detection

Average score

Detection

Average score

545

Hydrogen sulfide

7784

6

4

Animal (feet), sulfurous

480-560

Rotten egg (a)

1

0.3

3

0.3

3

1.0

NS

701

Methanethiol

74

93

1

Animal (feet), sulfurous (cabbage)

643-699

Sulfurous (a)

5

1.9

5

2.5

7

3.8

NS

Acetaldehyde

75

7

0

677-744

Etherial (a)

769

Dimethyl sulfide

75

18

3

No consensus

724-777

Sulfurous (a)

0

0.0b

0

0.0b

4

1.3a

**

802

Propanal

123

38

6

Chemical, acid

769-828

Etherial (a)

2

0.4

1

0.1

3

1.3

NS

824

2-Methylpropanal

78

84

2

No consensus

820-858

Spicy (a)

0

0.0b

1

0.10b

5

2.8a

***

844

1-Propanethiol

107

3

9

Sulfurous

817-845

Alliaceous (a)

7

4.4

6

4.3

7

4.6

NS

895

No peak

   

Sulfurous

  

3

1.0

1

0.3

5

2.0

NS

926

3-Methylbutanal

590

86

3

Animal (feet), malty

902-949

Aldehydic (a)

2

0.6b

6

3.7a

7

5.7a

***

936

Propenthiol

925

89

3

Sulfurous, pyrogenic (broth)

895-960

Raw Welsh onion (b)

8

5.3

8

5.5

8

5.9

NS

and/or Propylene sulfide

1072

43

1

875-915

 

979

2,3-Butanedione

431

3

8

Aldehydic (butter), sweet

975-1000

Buttery (a)

4

1.7

5

3.1

6

4.0

NS

1001

(Z)-1-Propenyl methyl sulfide

52195

40

1

Sulfurous, pyrogenic, unknown

1006

Garlic (a)

0

0.0b

0

0.0b

4

1.8a

*

1021

(E)-1-Propenyl methyl sulfide

42848

6

6

Sulfurous, pyrogenic

1006

Garlic (a)

1

0.2b

4

1.0ab

4

2.0a

*

1051

1-Pentanethiol

110

66

7

Sulfurous, animal

1039-1055

Sulfurous (a)

4

1.6

5

1.9

3

1.5

NS

1060

2,3-Pentanedione

600

14

6

Aldehydic (butter), sweet

973-1082

Buttery (a)

0

0.0b

0

0.0b

4

1.8a

**

1096

Hexanal

66

25

1

Herbal, pyrogenic (caramel)

1067-1099

Green (a)

2

0.7

3

1.4

3

1.1

NS

1110

Dimethyl disulfide

624

92

0

Sulfurous

1057-1120

Sulfurous (a)

3

0.7b

7

3.1a

6

2.2a

**

2-Methylthiophene

554

14

3

1078-1120

Sulfurous (a)

1126

(Z)-1-Propenyl propyl sulfide

33922

70

2

Sulfurous

 

Garlic (a)

4

1.6

5

2.0

6

2.6

NS

and/or (E)-1-Propenyl propyl sulfide

37981

34

3

  

1139

3-Methylthiophene

616

44

4

Sulfurous

1093-1158

 

5

2.4ab

3

1.4b

6

3.9a

*

1152

No peak

   

Sulfurous

  

5

2.5

6

2.9

5

3.2

NS

1169

Diallyl sulfide

592

88

1

Sulfurous

1118-1170

Sulfurous (a)

4

1.4

3

1.5

5

2.7

NS

1195

Unknown peak

   

Sulfurous (gas)

  

3

1.5

3

1.5

1

0.4

NS

1221

2,5-Dimethylthiophene

638

2

8

Sulfurous, pyrogenic

1187-1248

Sulfurous (a)

4

1.5

5

1.2

5

1.7

NS

3,4-Dimethylthiophene

632

15

5

1240-1257

Roasted onion (a)

1237

Unknown peak

   

Sulfurous

  

0

0.0b

0

0.0b

3

1.6a

*

1248

Methyl propyl disulfide

2179

60

4

Sulfurous

1213-1243

Alliaceous (a)

0

0.0b

4

1.3a

4

1.3a

*

1261

Unknown peak

   

Sulfurous

  

0

0.0

5

1.5

3

1.7

NS

1281

2,4-Dimethylthiophene

638

0

6

Sulfurous

1183-1264

Boiled onion-like (c)

7

3.8

7

5.3

8

5.6

NS

1315

1-Octen-3-one

4312

99

6

Woody (mushroom)

1298-1323

Earthy (a)

8

6.0

8

6.2

8

6.5

NS

1331

Unknown peak

   

Sulfurous

  

6

2.8a

1

0.6b

3

1.7ab

***

1346

Unknown ((E)-2-heptenal trail)

   

Sulfurous

  

3

1.6b

4

2.0b

7

4.3a

***

1368

2,6-Dimethylpyrazine

108

50

9

Pyrogenic (roasted)

1300-1360

Chocolate (a)

5

1.9b

7

4.8a

6

4.1a

**

Ethylpyrazine

13925

0

3

1334-1353

Nutty (a)

1387

No peak

   

Sulfurous, pyrogenic

  

3

1.1

1

0.7

1

0.8

NS

1398

No peak

   

Sulfurous

  

3

0.7

4

1.7

6

2.5

NS

1414

Dipropyl disulfide

629

19

6

Sulfurous

1370-1396

Alliaceous (a)

8

5.6

8

5.1

8

5.7

NS

Dimethyl trisulfide

3658

80

8

1370-1427

Alliaceous (a)

1423

Unknown peak

   

Chemical, sulfurous, pyrogenic

  

8

5.3

8

4.5

8

5.1

NS

1444

Unknown peak

   

Sulfurous

  

4

2.2

5

2.6

5

1.8

NS

1449

(Z) 1-Propenyl propyl disulfide

23838

20

2

Sulfurous

1404-1407

Baked Welsh onion-like (b)

2

1.4

1

0.6

4

1.8

NS

1462

(E) 1-Propenyl propyl disulfide

5905

46

4

Sulfurous

1410-1447

Raw onion-like (b)

6

2.4

7

3.2

5

2.2

NS

and/or allyl propyl disulfide

2179

59

1

1386-1474

Sulfurous (a)

1479

Methional

3268

49

3

Sulfurous (cooked potatoes)

1448-1479

Vegetable (a)

8

6.4

8

6.6

7

6.0

NS

1487

Furfural

98

1

1

Pyrogenic (cooked vegetables), woody

1384-1493

Bready (a)

1

0.1b

2

0.6b

5

2.6a

***

1507

Diallyl disulfide

2179

57

9

Sulfurous, pyrogenic

1463-1256

Alliaceous (a)

0

0.0b

0

0.0b

3

1.5a

**

1533

2-Acetylfuran

1192

62

7

Sulfurous, pyrogenic

1475-1538

Balsamic (a)

3

1.6b

3

0.8b

8

4.9a

***

1545

No peak

   

Sulfurous

  

7

3.8

3

1.7

6

3.8

NS

1553

Unknown peak (acide propanoic trail)

   

Sulfurous

  

4

2.4

3

1.3

4

2.5

NS

1558

Unknown peak (benzaldehyde trail)

   

Sulfurous

  

5

3.4

4

2.0

5

2.6

NS

1562

No peak

   

Sulfurous, pyrogenic

  

6

3.8

4

2.4

5

2.2

NS

1574

Unknown peak

   

Sulfurous

  

8

5.4a

8

6.1a

7

3.3b

**

1591

No peak

17619

36

2

Sulfurous

1494-1521

Sulfurous (a)

6

4.7

7

5.1

5

3.0

NS

1599

Unknown peak (5-methylfurfural trail)

   

Sulfurous

  

8

5.2

7

6.0

7

5.1

NS

1621

Dimethyl sulfoxide

67

68

5

Sulfurous

1560-1603

Alliaceous (a)

8

5.7

7

2.9

7

5.6

NS

1636

No peak

   

Sulfurous

  

5

3.3

6

3.7

5

3.9

NS

1651

Allyl methyl trisulfide

34135

85

8

Sulfurous

1592-1605

Sulfurous (a)

7

5.1

8

5.6

8

5.6

NS

and/or (Z)-Propenyl methyl trisulfide

33368

80

8

1605

 

and/or (E)-Propenyl methyl trisulfide

23838

25

7

  

1675

Benzeneacetaldehyde

122

78

1

Flower, pyrogenic (roasted), sulfurous, aldehydic

1638-1684

Green (a)

6

4.1

6

2.6

4

1.8

NS

Butyrolactone

96

48

0

1609-1672

Creamy (a)

2-Furanmethanol

98

0

0

1636-1693

Bready (a)

1699

3 -Thiophenecarboxaldehyde

498

62

4

Sulfurous

1666-1693

 

8

5.6

8

5.5

8

5.6

NS

Dipropyl trisulfide

6028

61

1

1636-1738

Sulfurous (a)

1735

2-Thiophencarboxaldehyde

98

3

3

Sulfurous, aldehydic

1655- 1734

 

6

4.5

5

2.6

6

2.8

NS

1752

No peak

   

Sulfurous

  

1

0.8

4

2.1

5

2.9

NS

1778

No peak

23838

27

9

Sulfurous (raw onion)

1749-1795

 

5

2.0

6

3.1

1

0.9

NS

1796

(Z)-Propenyl propyl trisulfide

23838

26

8

Chemical, pyrogenic, sulfurous

1728

Onion-like (c)

4

2.1

3

1.3

3

1.1

NS

and/or (E)-Propenyl propyl trisulfide

23838

27

9

1750

Onion-like (c)

and/or Allyl propyl trisulfide

33922

73

5

1699

Sulfurous (a)

1815

Unknown peak

   

Sulfurous

1762-1785

 

0

0.0b

0

0.0b

3

1.4a

*

1854

Diallyl trisulfide

2050

87

5

Sulfurous, pyrogenic

1775-1789

sulfurous (a)

7

5.1b

8

5.99a

8

5.87a

***

Dipropenyl trisulfide (isomer)

     

1858

(E,E) 2,4-Decadienal

25152

84

5

Sulfurous, unknown

1763-1858

Fatty (a)

6

3.0

5

3.4

6

3.9

NS

1884

Unknown

   

Pyrogenic, unknown

  

3

1.5a

0

0.0b

5

2.1a

*

1954

No peak

   

Sulfurous (sauteed/pan fried), pyrogenic

  

3

1.3

2

1.0

2

0.8

NS

1975

Unknown peak

   

Sulfurous

  

0

0.0

4

1.1

3

1.1

NS

2043

2-Acetylpyrrole

1072

83

9

Other, sweet, floral

1935-2066

Musty (a)

4

1.4

3

1.4

6

2.4

NS

2071

Unknown peak

   

Other, pyrogenic

  

5

3.0

5

1.4

6

2.8

NS

2100

No peak

   

Pyrogenic (caramel)

  

6

3.7b

7

5.0a

7

6.0a

***

2115

No peak

   

Pyrogenic (caramel)

  

6

2.9

3

2.1

3

2.3

NS

2178

No peak

   

Pyrogenic

  

1

1.2

3

0.8

1

0.9

NS

2216

No peak

   

Pyrogenic (roasted), sulfurous

  

3

1.1

0

0.0

1

0.5

NS

2241

No peak

   

Sulfurous

  

0

0.0b

0

0.0b

3

0.8a

*

2255

No peak

   

Sulfurous, pyrogenic

  

0

0.0b

0

0.0b

3

1.0a

*

Compounds in bold are those for which identification is considered as achieved (based on LRI, MS, odor, and standard). Compounds in italics are those not confirmed by all means of identification and therefore considered as tentatively identified. The gap that can be observed between LRI of some compounds and LRI of the corresponding odorant zones is due to the difference of temperature between the transfer line (200 °C) and the capillary leading to the MS detector (equal to oven temperature). Asterisks indicate differences between intensity score of onion juices with significance according to two-way analysis of variance *p ≤ 0.1; **p ≤ 0.05; ***p ≤ 0.01. NS indicates no differences between intensity scores of onions juices according to two-way analysis of variance. Different letters (a, b) between columns indicate significant differences in the intensity scores of onions juices according to least significant difference test (p ≤ 0.1). For each odorant zone, the non-consensual descriptors belonging to a same pole were grouped by the name of the pole. Odor description: (a) [61], (b) [7, 8], (c) [13]

In the sué and sautéed onion samples, 50 and 53 odorant zones were significantly detected whereas 65 were perceived in the pan-fried samples. A total of 71 different odorant zones were listed. Most of them, i.e., 42 zones, were significantly perceived in each preparation which means that a major part of the odorants is common to the three samples. Hence, flavor differences resulting from these three modes of cooking are due to a minor part of the present odorants.

Among the 42 zones commonly perceived in the sué, sautéed, and pan-fried preparations, 12 were perceived by 7 or 8 judges out of 8 in each sample. 1-Octen-3-one (linear retention index (LRI)—1315) was unanimously detected and described as mushroom. However, a majority of these zones were described by judges as sulfurous and 8 were actually associated with sulfur compounds (LRI 936—propenthiol and propylene sufide; LRI 1281—2,4-dimethylthiophene; LRI 1414—dipropyl disulfide and dimethyl trisulfide; LRI 1479—methional; LRI 1621—dimethyl sulfoxide; LRI 1651—allyl methyl trisulfide and/or (Z and/or E)-1-propenyl methyl trisulfide; LRI 1699—3-thiophenecarboxaldehyde and dipropyl trisulfide; LRI 1854—diallyl trisulfide and/or dipropenyl trisulfide). These compounds are supposed to contribute largely to the aroma of the studied samples. Propyl- and propenyl-containing di- and trisulfides were previously reported to contribute to the flavor of cooked onions [6, 8]. These profiles seem to confirm the involvement of 2,4-dimethylthiophene in the aroma of “fried” cooked onions [9], but as mentioned previously [12], the odorant note associated with this compound was not described as such. Contrary to the other compounds found in the olfactometric profile of the three onion preparations, the terms given by judges to describe the odor of sulfurous compounds were not consensual but they all belong to the sulfurous pole. Therefore, only the general term “sulfurous” corresponding to this pole was retained. Other odorant zones perceived in each product were also mainly described as sulfurous and those which have been identified were associated with thiols (LRI 701—methanethiol; LRI 844—1-propanethiol; LRI 1051—1-pentanethiol), sulfides (LRI 1126—(Z) or (E)-1-propenyl propyl sulfide; LRI 1169—diallyl sulfide), disulfides (LRI 1462—allyl or (E)-1-propenyl propyl disulfide, LRI 1110—dimethyl disulfide), trisulfides (LRI 1796—(E) and/or (Z)-1-propenyl propyl trisulfide and/or allyl propyl trisulfide), and thiophenes (LRI 1110—2-methylthiophene; LRI 1139—3-methylthiophene; LRI 1221—2,5- and 3,4-dimethylthiophene; LRI 1735—2-thiophenecarboxaldehyde). Some compounds perceived in all products also bring non-sulfurous notes characterized by descriptors belonging to the aldehydic pole (LRI 979—2,3-butanedione; LRI 1675—butyrolactone; LRI 1858—2,4-decadienal) and to the pyrogenic pole (LRI 1675—2-furanemethanol; LRI 1368—2,6-dimethylpyrazine and ethylpyrazine; LRI 1533—2-acetylfuran). Additional odorant zones detected in the three samples could not be associated with a compound. They were also mainly described by descriptors from the sulfurous and pyrogenic poles (LRI 1152, 1346, 1398, 1444, 1545, 1553, 1558, 1562, 1591, 1636, 2071, 2100, and 2115). The prevalence of sulfurous detections in the olfactometric profiles of the cooked onions can be explained by the preponderance of sulfur compounds in onion but particularly by the very low detection thresholds of these compounds that could be within thousandths of a part per billion [56]. This could also explain that many odorant zones described as sulfurous remained unknown or not associated with any peak since compounds are probably present in trace amounts. Very little bibliography deals with the aromatic profile of cooked onions. To our knowledge, studies dealing with olfactometry analysis were performed on onions cooked without fat which can logically explain that compounds identified as coming from thermal degradation of lipids (acetaldehyde, 1-octen-3-one, 2,4-decadienal) were not previously listed [8, 13]. Furthermore, in these two previous studies, olfactometry was performed with an unknown number of judges, which can explain that only half the odorant zones that were perceived in each of the three present preparations were previously detected.

Beyond the single detection of the odorant compounds, the use of the laboratory-developed software enables a rating of the intensities perceived by judges for each odorant zone on a continuous scale. An analysis of variance was carried out on the intensity scores obtained for each odor event in the three samples. It reveals that 22 odorant zones out of the 71 detected were perceived as significantly different in at least one of the three onion preparations (p value <0.1).

The olfactometric profile of the sué onion sample singles out by the lowest number of odorant zones detected associated with low intensities scores. This result is in accordance with the result of ANOVA performed on major compounds’ FID peak areas presented above.

Conversely, the headspace of the pan-fried onion sample is characterized by a higher number of odorant zones detected and also by significantly higher intensity scores mainly for compounds that originate from Maillard reaction bringing notes belonging to the pyrogenic pole (LRI 824—2-methylpropanal; LRI 1139—3-methylthiophene; LRI 1487—furfural; LRI 1533—2-acetylfuran). The higher detection of these two latter compounds is consistent with the bibliography that identify furanic compounds as important contributors to the characteristic odor of fried products [57]. These compounds have low thresholds and provide pleasant odor characteristics, such as cocoa, butter, or fruity [58]. The present results are in accordance with previous observations of a reduced pungency of onion through sweet notes with cooking [44]. Some odorant zones are only detected in the headspace of the pan-fried samples and were related either to sulfur compounds (LRI 769—dimethyl sulfide; LRI 1001—(Z)-1-propenyl methyl sulfide) or to compounds generated by Maillard reaction (LRI 1060—2,3-pentanedione). These results are also consistent with those of ANOVA performed on FID peak areas presented above.

Intermediately, the headspace of the sautéed onion sample is qualitatively close to that of the sué sample with similar odorant zones detected. However, one third of them were significantly perceived as more intense. Among them, 3-methylbutanal (LRI 928) was associated with malted and animal odorant notes. The others are both related to sulfur and Maillard compounds and are mainly associated with sulfurous and pyrogenic descriptors, respectively. Particularly, the presence of pyrazines at LRI 1368 described as “roasted” [59, 60] and the unidentified odorant zone at LRI 2100 described as caramel seems to contribute to the specific aroma of the sautéed onions.

Handling of data was simplified by the use of this software that records complete odor informations for odor events, i.e., elution time, duration, intensity, and descriptors, and provides computerized and ready-to-process data directly after gas chromatography-olfactometry (GC-O) sessions. Individual aromagrams can be automatically combined for each sample either into detection frequency or average intensity aromagrams. These aroma profiles were obtained from judges through an intuitive and rapid demarch which increase result accuracy. Judges can thus properly transmit characteristics of close odor events. As an example, judges succeed to characterize properly the close odorant areas corresponding to methional (LRI 1479) and furfural (LRI 1487).

Besides, the fact that, beyond simple detection, this software can record intensity score from a continuous scale, allows going further in the comparison of resembling aroma products such as these three traditional onions preparations. ANOVA performed on intensity scores highlights for some compounds, differences that were not perceptible by comparison of their detection frequency. As an example, two unidentified odor areas, associated with sulfurous (LRI 1574) and caramel (LRI 2100) descriptors, respectively, were similarly perceived by six to eight judges in the three samples. ANOVA performed on their intensity scores underlined significative differences since the less intense odor area has an intensity average between 3.3 and 3.7 while the others were between 5.0 and 6.1 which pointed out that the compound associated with the first cited odorant zone (LRI 1574) is likely to more impact the sulfur characteristic aroma of the sué and sautéed onions than that of pan-fried onion. Conversely, the unidentified compound associated with the second cited odorant zone (LRI 2100) can bring a caramel note in the pan-fried onion aroma in a greater manner than in the other two.

Conclusions

This study results in the aromatic characterization of onions prepared through three traditional modes of cooking, i.e., sué, sautéed, and pan-fried. The analysis of samples by gas chromatography coupled with flame ionization detection and mass spectrometry allows the identification of 66 major compounds. Among them, sulfur compounds, aldehydes, and furanic compounds were the most represented according to their FID peak areas. The headspace of sué and sautéed preparations contains globally fewer compounds than the headspace of the pan-fried samples. The sué sample contains greater amounts of some sulfur compounds coming from enzymatic reactions whereas the headspace of the sautéed preparation is characterized by greater amounts of some compounds hypothesized to come from lipid oxidation. Additionally, the headspace of the pan-fried onion sample is characterized by higher amounts of many compounds which are consistent for that preparation which combines high temperature with long cooking time and favors notably Maillard reaction and lipid oxidation.

The olfactometric approach completes the characterization of these three samples of cooked onions revealing the contribution of minor compounds to their specific aromas. The use of innovative laboratory-designed software enables an intuitive characterization and precise rating of the odorants present in these products and thus allows a statistical comparison of their aromatic profiles. In accordance with the chromatographic results, the sué onions single out by a weak number of detected odorant zones associated with low intensity scores. Conversely, the pan-fried onions are characterized by more odorant zones detected associated with higher intensities and notably by an enhanced perception of some Maillard compounds. The aromatic profile of sautéed onion is qualitatively close to that of sué onion but is associated with more important intensities. Particularly, the presence of pyrazines could contribute to the specific aroma of the sautéed onions. This knowledge can be notably capitalized by food industry to create or enhance culinary notes in food products.

The assessment of olfactometric profiles obtained for onions prepared by three different modes of cooking and the comprehension of such fine nuances in aroma could not have been performed without the precision and the accuracy of data recorded by the laboratory-developed software coupled with the statistical processing of intensity scores. Indeed, this innovative tool allows a rapid and efficient data transmission and recording of perceptions through an intuitive wheel aroma interface. It solves most bias found in current GC-O data acquisition methods (Table 1) and notably those inherent to the oral transmission of judges’ impressions. This device is a valuable tool to investigate products with complex aroma, identify target compounds involved in specific aroma notes, and follow the evolution of aroma profile of a product during its fabrication process or storage. It gives insights to food industry to understand, reproduce, or enhance culinary notes.

Methods

Onion sample preparation

Fresh, raw onions were peeled and chopped into 3–5 mm cubes and then cooked in accordance with definitions of the French Larousse Gastronomique to obtain sué, sautéed, and pan-fried onions.

Sué onion preparation: 30 g of sunflower oil were added to a saucepan heated to 100 °C and 1 kg of onions was then added. The onions were regularly stirred for 25 min. Cooking was stopped when the onions were translucent.

Sautéed onion preparation: 30 g of sunflower oil was heated to 155 °C in a pan. Then, 1 kg of onions was added and was evenly sautéed for 10 min. Cooking was stopped when onions had a homogeneous caramelized appearance.

Pan-fried onion preparation: 30 g of sunflower oil was heated to 130 °C in a pan. Then, 500 g of onions were added and were evenly sautéed for 18 min. Cooking was stopped when onions had a shiny appearance and some of them were burnt.

Each of the three preparations were pounded and pressed into onion juice. Aliquots of 7 mL of juice were put into 20-mL glass vials, hermetically closed with a metal/Teflon cap. These samples were stored at −80 °C until analysis.

Extraction of volatile compounds

Headspace solid phase micro-extraction (HS-SPME) was used to extract volatile compounds of onion juices samples. Vials were incubated at 45 °C for 45 min, and volatile compounds were then extracted on a CAR/PDMS SPME fiber (10 mm long, 85 μm film thickness; Supelco, Bellefonte, PA, USA) placed in the headspace of the vial for 10 min.

Chromatographic conditions

HS-SPME extracts of onion juices were analyzed by gas chromatography (GC; Agilent Technologies 7890N, Wilmington, DE, USA) coupled with a quadripolar mass spectrometer (MS; Agilent Technologies, 5973 Network, Wilmington, DE, USA), a flame ionization detector (FID), and an olfactometric port. Volatile compounds were desorbed into the injection port of the chromatograph (temperature 260 °C; splitless mode for 5 min) and separated on a DB-Wax column (length 30 m, internal diameter 0.25 mm, film thickness 0.5 μm). Helium was used as carrier gas at constant pressure (124 kPa). The oven temperature was programmed from 40 (0 min) to 50 °C at 5 °C·min−1, next from 50 to 120 °C (2 min) at 10 °C·min-1, then from 120 to 210 °C at 10 °C·min−1, and finally from 210 to 240 °C (10 min) at 25 °C·min−1. Effluent from the end of the GC column was split 1:3 between the MS, the FID, and the olfactometric port (250 °C, air/H2 flow 450/40 mL·min−1). Peak areas were integrated using MSD Chemstation software (Agilent Technologies). Mass spectra were recorded in electron impact mode (70 eV) between a mass range of 33 to 300 m/z at a scan rate of 2.7 scan·s−1.

Olfactometric conditions

GC effluent was carried to the sniffing port using a deactivated and uncoated fused silica capillary column, heated to 200 °C. The GC sniffing port is equipped with a nose glass funnel where assessor puts his nose. The olfactometric port was supplied with humidified air to prevent dehydration of the nasal mucosa.

Olfactometric data were recorded in real time with laboratory-designed software that records the following parameters synchronously the GC-MS analysis: times of perception of an odor, intensity, and associated descriptor. Descriptors were generated from literature on aroma compounds found in raw and cooked onions [8, 13, 61, 62] and from previous sniffing sessions performed by two expert judges on each of the three onion preparations. They were presented on a dedicated wheel aroma especially designed for the study of cooked onions samples (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Aroma wheel used for the olfactometric analysis of sué, sautéed, and pan-fried onion preparations

The wheel is structured in 17 poles associated with general odor families written in capital letters. These poles can be divided in more numerous sections associated with precise descriptors. Colors were also associated with poles to help judges rapidly find terms corresponding to the odors perceived. Judges were trained in aroma recognition and in the use of an intensity scale. Terms were explained to the judges, and the panel was trained to locate each pole and descriptor on the wheel according to the Table 4. Ethical committee approval was not required for this study; however, human sensory analyses were conducted following the spirit of the Helsinki Declaration, and informed consent was obtained from all panelists.
Table 4

Terms used to describe odors perceived during olfactometric analysis of onions and examples associated

Odor families

Terms

Examples associated

Fruity

  

Animal

  
 

Feet

 

Fishy

 

Fish, ammoniacal

Aldehyde

  
 

Butter

Fresh butter, melted butter

 

Fatty

Animal fat, margarine, lard

 

Frying oil

Oily, french fries

Herbal

  
 

Green

Green vegetables

 

Fresh

Cutted grass

Spicy

 

Clove, pepper, curry

Chemical

 

Pharmaceutical, medicine, solvent, alcohol

Acid

  
 

Piquant

vinegar

Sulfurous

  
 

Gas

Natural gas

 

Cabbage

 
 

Cooked potatoes

Boiled potatoes, purée

 

Alliaceous

Garlic, shallot, chive, ciboule

 

Raw leek

 
 

Onion skin/tannic

 
 

Raw onions

 
 

Sautéed/browned onions

 
 

Onion soup

 
 

Caramelized onion

 

Pyrogenic

  
 

Cooked vegetables

 
 

Broth

Soup

 

Meat stock

 
 

Caramel

Melted sugar, salted butter caramel

 

Roasted

Torrefied coffee, toasted bread, grilled meat

Malty

 

Chocolate, beer, basmati rice

Sweet

 

Candy, vanilla

Flower

  

Mint

 

Chewing gum with menthol, anise

Woody

  
 

Mushroom

Wet cellars, earthy, musty

Unknown

  

Others

  

Each judge had prior experience in GC-O. Eight judges were involved in the olfactometric analysis of each sample. During olfactometric sessions, they were encouraged to describe each odor perceived as precisely as possible using terms proposed on the wheel. If the odor perceived did not correspond to any descriptor, they were invited to describe, if possible, the odor by the name of the pole corresponding to the general odor family. If the odor perceived could be neither related to a descriptor nor to a general family, judges could use the “Unknown” section or the “Other” section. Only in this latter case, the description of the odor was externally recorded.

Judges were asked to signal the perception of an odor by directing the mouse pointer toward the section of the wheel corresponding to the adequate odor term or pole. They were also asked to score the intensity of the perceived odor on a 0–10 intensity scale. The scale was represented by the radius of the wheel; the center of the wheel stands for the zero value and the edge of the wheel for the 10 (maximum) values. The judges scored the odor by clicking in the corresponding scale level. When an odor was no longer perceived, judges were asked to direct the pointer of the mouse back to the wheel center.

Odorant compound identification

Odorant compounds were identified by comparison of their mass spectra with those of a reference database (Wiley 6.0 and internal laboratory database). Linear retention indices (LRI) of detected compounds were calculated by means of n-alkane injections (C6 to C32) and compared with those of standards injected in the same conditions and with those found in the literature. Descriptors given for each detected compound were also compared with those found in the literature.

Data processing and statistical analyses

FID peak areas

One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on FID peak areas. Least significant difference (LSD) multiple comparison tests were then performed with a 95 % confidence level. A principal component analysis was conducted on peak areas significantly different between at least two products as highlighted by ANOVA.

Olfactometric data

Odorant zones detected by at least three judges in at least one sample were taken into account [23]. Two-way analysis of variance and LSD multiple comparison tests (90 % confidence level) were performed on intensity scores in order to highlight the differences between the olfactometric profiles of each type of onion preparations.

Xlstat software (version 2011.2.08, Addinsoft) was used to conduct these statistical analyses.

Abbreviations

ANOVA: 

analysis of variance

FID: 

flame ionization detection

GC: 

gas chromatography

HS-SPME: 

headspace solid phase microextraction

LRI: 

linear retention indices

LSD: 

least significant difference

MS: 

mass spectrometry

O: 

olfactometry

TPA: 

total peak area

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This research was part of global program “Mise au point d’ingrédients végétaux multifonctionnels innovants” financially supported by the Unique Interministerial Fund and the French public investment bank (FOI-AAP10). This program was also labeled by Valorial.

The authors acknowledge Eric Vouland for his active participation in setting up the project, Rob Evans for the follow-up of the study, Claude Inisan and Sébastien Langlais for their proofreading of the manuscript, and Ehsane Khadraoui and Cécile Pussat for their contribution in the lab pre-tests.

The authors also want to thank the judges for their involvement in olfactometry analyses.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
ONIRIS, Nantes-Atlantic College of Veterinary Medicine and Food Science, UMR GEPEA CNRS 6144
(2)
Université Nantes Angers Le Mans
(3)
Polytech Nantes, LINA CNRS 6241
(4)
Diana Food

References

  1. Whitfield FB, Last JH. Vegetables. In: Maarse H, editor. Volatile compounds in foods and beverages. Zeist: Marcel Dekker, Inc; 1991. p. 764.Google Scholar
  2. Lanzotti V. The analysis of onion and garlic. J Chromatogr A. 2006;1112:3–22.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Block E. The organosulfur chemistry of the genus Allium—implications for the organic chemistry of sulfur. Angenz Chem Int Ed Enn. 1992;31:1135–78.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Colina-Coca C, Gonzales-Pena D, Vega E, De Ancos B, Sanchez-Moreno C. Novel approach for the determination of volatile compounds in processed onion by headspace gas chromatography–massspectrometry (HS GC–MS). Talanta. 2013;103:137–44.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Kedebe BT, Grauwet T, Mutsokoti L, Palmers S, Vervoort L, Hendrickx M, et al. Comparing the impact of high pressure high temperature and thermal sterilization on the volatile fingerprint of onion, potato, pumpkin and red beet. Food Res Int. 2014;56:218–25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Nijssen LM, Visscher CA, Maarse H, Willemsens LC, Boelens MH. Volatile compounds in food qualitative and quantitative data. Al Zeist: TNO Nutrition and Food Research Institute; 1996.Google Scholar
  7. Tokitomo Y. Flavor constituents of roasted onions of different cultivars, and comparison of their aroma patterns. Nippon Shokuhin Kagaku Kogaku Kaishi. 1995;42:1003–11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Tokitomo Y. Volatile components of cooked onions. Nippon Shokuhin Kagaku Kogaku Kaishi. 1995;42:279–87.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Boelens M, De Valois PJ, Wobben HJ, Van De Gen A. Volatile flavor compounds from onion. J Agric Food Chem. 1971;19:984–91.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Brodnitz MH, Pollock CL, Vallon PP. Flavor components of onion oil. J Agric Food Chem. 1969;17:760–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Yamanishi T, Orioka A. Chemical studies on the change of flavor and taste of onion by boiling. J Home Econom. 1955;6:45–7.Google Scholar
  12. Galetto WG, Hoffman PG. Synthesis and flavor evaluation of some alkylthiophenes. Volatile components of onion. J Agric Food Chem. 1976;24:852–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Tokitomo Y, Yamanishi T. Sweet flavor of cooked onion. Journal de l'économie domestique du Japon. 1993;44:347–53.Google Scholar
  14. Curioni PMG, Bosset JO. Key odorants in various cheese types as determined by gas chromatography-olfactometry. Int Dairy J. 2008;12:959–84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Plutowska B, Wardencki W. Application of gas chromatography–olfactometry (GC–O) in analysis and quality assessment of alcoholic beverages—a review. Food Chem. 2008;107:449–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Sunarharum WB, Williams DJ, Smyth HE. Complexity of coffee flavor: a compositional and sensory perspective. Food Res Int. 2014;62:315–25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Garruti DS, Franco MRB, Da Silva MAAP, Janzantti NS, Alves GL. Assessment of aroma impact compounds in a cashew apple-based alcoholic beverage by GC-MS and GC-olfactometry. Food Sci Technol. 2006;39:373–8.Google Scholar
  18. Debonneville C, Orsier B, Flament I, Chaintreau A. Improved hardware and software for quick gas chromatography-olfactometry using CHARM and GC-"SNIF" analysis. Anal Chem. 2002;74:2345–51.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Berdagué JL, Tournayre P, Cambou S. Novel multi-gas chromatography-olfactometry device and software for the identification of odour-active compounds. J Chromatogr A. 2007;1146:85–92.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Charles M, Martin B, Ginies C, Etiévant P, Coste G, Guichard E. Potent aroma compounds of two red wine vinegars. J Agric Food Chem. 2000;48:70–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Le Fur Y, Mercurio V, Moio L, Blanquet J, Meunier JM. A new approach to examine the relationships between sensory and gas chromatography-olfactometry data using generalized procrustes analysis applied to six french chardonnay wines. J Agric Food Chem. 2003;51:443–52.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Moio L, Chambellant E, Lesschaeve I, Issanchou S, Schlich P, Etiévant P. Production of representative wine extracts for chemical and olfactory analysis. Ital J Food Sci. 1995;3:265–78.Google Scholar
  23. Pollien P, Ott A, Montignon F, Baumgartner M, Munos-Box R, Chaintreau A. Hyphenated headspace-gas chromatography-sniffing technique: screening of impact odorants and quantitative aromagram comparisons. J Agric Food Chem. 1997;45:2630–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Van Ruth SM. Evaluation of two gas chromatography-olfactometry methods: the detection frequency and perceived intensity method. J Chromatogr A. 2004;1054:33–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Etiévant P, Callement G, Langlois D, Issanchou S, Coquibus N. Odor intensity evaluation in gas chromatography-olfactometry by finger span method. J Agric Food Chem. 1999;47:1673–80.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Guichard H, Guichard E, Langlois D, Issanchou S, Abbott N. GC-sniffing analysis: olfactive intensity measurement by two methods. Z Lebensmittel Untersuch Forsch. 1995;201:344–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Nimmi J, Leus M, Silcock P, Hamid N, Bremer P. Characterisation of odour active compounds of New Zealand sea urchin (Evechinus chloroticus) roe using chromatography-olfactometry-finger span cross modality (GC-O-FSCM) method. Food Chem. 2010;121:601–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Dussort P, Deprêtre N, Bou-Maroun E, Fant C, Guichard E, Brunerie P, et al. An original approach for gas chromatography-olfactometry detection frequency analysis: application to gin. Food Res Int. 2012;49:253–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Garcia CV, Stevenson RJ, Atkinson RG, Winz RA, Quek SY. Changes in the bound aroma profiles of ‘Hayward’ and ‘Hort16A’ kiwifruit (Actinidia spp.) during ripening and GC-olfactometry analysis. Food Chem. 2013;137:45–54.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Rouby C, Thomas-Danguin T, Sicard G, Vigouroux M, Jiang T, Poitevineau J, et al. Influence of the semantic context on odor identification performance. Psychologie française. 2005;50:225–39.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Cain WS. To know with the nose: keys to odor identification. Science. 1979;203:467–70.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Cotte VME, Prasad SK, Wan PHW, Linforth RST, Taylor AJ. Cigarette smoke: GC-olfactometry analyses using two computer programs. In: Blank I, Wust M, Yeretzian C, editors. Expression of multidisciplinary flavour science—proceedings of the 12th Weurman Symposium; 2010. Interlaken: Institute of chemistry and biological chemistry; 2008. p. 498–501.Google Scholar
  33. Jarvenpaa EP, Zhang Z, Huopalahti R, King JW. Determination of fresh onion (Allium cepa L.) volatiles by solid phase microextraction combined with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Z Lebensm Unters Forsch A. 1998;207:39–43.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Mazza G. Headspace sampling procedures for onion (Allium cepa L.) - aroma assessment. Canadian Institute of Food Science and Technology. 1980;13:87–96.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Mochizuki E, Yamamoto T. Identification of Allium products using flame photometric detection Gas chromatography and distribution patterns of volatile sulfur compounds. J Agric Food Chem. 1998;46:5170–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Ohta H, Osajima Y. Volatile components recovered from fresh onion (Allium cepa L.) with combination of ethyl ether extraction and new cold trap apparatus. J Fat Agr. 1992;37:125–31.Google Scholar
  37. Whitfield FB. Volatiles from interactions of Maillard reactions and lipids. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 1992;31:1–58.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Iranshahi M. A review of volatile sulfur-containing compounds from terrestrial plants: biosynthesis, distribution and analytical methods. J Essent Oil Res. 2012;24:393–434.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Arnold RG, Libbey LM, Lindsay RC. Volatile flavour compounds produced by heat degradation of thiamine (vitamin B1). J Agric Food Chem. 1969;17:390–2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Kato S, Kurata T, Ishiguro S, Fujimaki M. Additional volatile compounds produced by pyrolysis of sulfur containing amino acids. Agric Biol Chem. 1973;37:1759–61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Mussinan CJ, Katz I. Isolation and identification of some sulfur chemicals present in two model systems approximating cooked meat. J Agric Food Chem. 1973;21:43–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Li C, Schmidt NE, Gitaitis R. Detection of onion postharvest diseases by analyses of headspace volatiles using a gas sensor array and GC-MS. Food Sci Technol. 2011;44:1019–25.Google Scholar
  43. Berger RG. Flavours and fragrances, chemistry, bioprocessing and sustainability. Berlin: Springer; 2007.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang Y, Raghavan S, Ho CT. Process flavors of Allium vegetables. In: Bruckner B, Wyllie SG, editors. Fruit and vegetables flavour, recent advances and future prospects. Cambridge: Woodhead publishing; 2008.Google Scholar
  45. Baysal T, Demirdoven A. Lipoxygenase in fruits and vegetables: a review. Enzyme Microb Technol. 2006;40:491–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Ledl F. Untersuchung des rostzwiebelaromas. Z Lebensm Unters-Forsch. 1975;157:229–34.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Frankel EN. Lipid oxidation. Elsevierth ed. Cambridge: Woodhead publishing limited; 2005.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Guillen MD, Goicoechea E. Formation of oxygenated a, b-unsaturated aldehydes and other toxic compounds in sunflower oil oxidation at room temperature in closed receptacles. Food Chem. 2008;111:157–64.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Taylor AJ. Flavour science : recent developments. Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry; 1996.Google Scholar
  50. Chatzivasileiadis EA, Boon JJ, Sabelis MW. Accumulation and turnover of 2-tridecanone in Tetranychus urticae and its consequences for resistance of wild and cultivated tomatoes. Exp Appl Acarol. 1999;23:1011–21.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Chatzivasileiadis EA, Sabelis MW. Toxicity of methyl ketones from tomato trichomes to Tetranychu urticae Koch. Exp Appl Acarol. 1997;21:473–84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Fery RL, Kennedy GG. Genetic analysis of 2-tridecanone concentration, leaf tricome characteristics, and tobacco hornworm resistance in tomato. J Am Soc Hort Sci. 1987;11:886–91.Google Scholar
  53. Jasoni R, Kane C, Green C, Peffley E, Tissue D, Thompson L, et al. Altered leaf and root emissions from onion (Allium cepa L.) grown under elevated CO2 conditions. Environmental and Experimental Botany. 2004;51:273–80.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Forney FW, Markovetz AJ. Subterminal oxidation of aliphatic hydrocarbons. J Bacteriol. 1970;102:281–2.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Eskin NAM, Ho CT, Shahidi F, Eskin N. Browning reactions in foods. In: Biochemistry of foods. San Diego: Academic press; 2013. p. 584.Google Scholar
  56. Leffingwell database. The Good Scents Company (tgsc) 1977 East Montana Avenue Oak Creek, WI, 53154 USA. http://www.leffingwell.com/odorthre.htm. Accessed Dec 2014.
  57. Wagner R, Grosch W. Key odorants of french fries. J Am Oil Chem Soc. 1998;75:1385–92.Google Scholar
  58. Belitz HD, Grosch W, Schieberle P. Food chemistry. 4th ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2009.Google Scholar
  59. Davidek J, Velisek J, Pokorny J. Development in food science: chemical changes during food processing. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers; 1990.Google Scholar
  60. Ho CT. Thermal generation of Maillard aromas. In: Ikan R, editor. The Maillard reaction: consequences for the chemical and life sciences. New York: Wiley; 1996. p. 27–54.Google Scholar
  61. The good scent company database. Leffingwell & Associates Canton, Georgia, USA http://www.thegoodscentscompany.com/.
  62. Kubec R, Drhova V, Velısek J. Volatile compounds thermally generated from S-propylcysteine and S-propylcysteine sulfoxides - aroma precursors of Allium vegetables. J Agric Food Chem. 1999;47:1132–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Villière et al. 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement