Journal of Food Quality
Volume 2019 (2019), Article ID 8568920, 11 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8568920

Research Article

Effect of Spices on the Formation of VOCs in Roasted Mutton Based on GC-MS and Principal Component Analysis

Jiapei Xi,¹ Ping Zhan,1,2 Honglei Tian,¹ and Peng Wang¹

¹College of Food Engineering and Nutritional Science, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710119, China
²Food College, Shihezi University, Shihezi, Xinjiang 832000, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Ping Zhan; zhanping0993@126.com and Honglei Tian; tianhonglei1979@163.com

Received 3 May 2019; Accepted 22 July 2019; Published 10 September 2019

Academic Editor: Fabio Napolitano

Copyright © 2019 Jiapei Xi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

Peppertree prickly ash, Amomum tsao-ko, cumin, and ginger have long been used in Asian countries to modify the flavor and to partially neutralize any unpleasant odors present in roast lamb. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the change in the amount of volatile components present in roast lamb compared to meat added with peppertree prickly ash, Amomum tsao-ko, cumin, and ginger. Principal component analysis was carried out on the 27 initially selected from 88 volatile substances, and 15 substances with a projection of more than 0.25 in the load matrix were used as indicators to study the different contents in roasted mutton and lamb prepared by adding peppertree prickly ash, Amomum tsao-ko, cumin, and ginger. The types of VOCs (volatile organic compounds) detected in roast meat without adding spices were the least. Roast meat with the addition of cumin leads to the strongest content of aldehydes, followed by the addition of Amomum tsao-ko. Additionally, roast meat with the addition of Chinese prickly ash leads to the strongest content of terpenes, followed by the addition of ginger. Moreover, with the addition of spices, the content of volatiles responsible for the presence of a mutton odor (such as hexanal, heptanal, pentanal, (z)-4-decenal, benzaldehyde, p-propyl-anisole, and dimethyl ether) was not significantly decreased, and in fact some volatiles increased in amount such as pentanal, hexanal, octanal, and (z)-4-decenal. In conclusion, the effect of addition of spices on the volatile profile of roasted mutton and lamb can be attributed to the generation of flavor volatiles mainly derived from raw spices’ hot action, with few additional volatiles formed during boiling.

1. Introduction

Roast lamb or mutton meat is spreading in many countries as the most popular traditional foods [1, 2]. Consumer acceptance of mutton from farm to fork is strongly influenced by the eating quality including flavor development [3]. Aromas of cooked meat are predestined from volatile compounds [4]. When meat is cooked, various volatile compounds are released by heat-induced reactions, mainly Strecker and Maillard reaction, lipid oxidation and degradation, thiamin degradation, and interaction of lipid-oxidized products with Strecker and Maillard products [4]. However, consumers may dislike the strong flavor of mutton [5, 6]. Several studies concerning the factors affecting components of the goaty flavor in mutton such as fat content, fatty acid composition, and amino acid content and composition, and reducing sugar content, and composition of meat [7], which are affected by breed, sex, and maturity of animals and aging time with proteolytic and lipolytic enzyme activities of meat [8–10], have been conducted, and some methods have been gradually developed to reduce or modify the species flavor, for instance, washing, hot processing, extrusion with nonmeat ingredients, and adding spices [11].

In meat processing, spices are used to improve shelf life, appearance, or even flavor of meat products [12]. The basic effects of spices used in cooking are an enhancement or modification in the flavor of the products [13], partially removing off-flavor and plumping the flavoring properties [14]. The masking function of the spice odor was not through physical absorption or chemical conversion of the compounds responsible for the undesirable odors but through the release of strongly flavored compounds covering the unpleasant smell or mixed with the odor compounds [15]. For example, the addition of black pepper and cumin extracts improved the quality of Bulgarian-type dry-cured sausages “Sudjuk” [16]. Jung [17] found that the addition of spices to the beef patty changes the volatile compounds released and interact with meat aroma significantly. In addition, most spices of an Indian spice blend (garam masala) imparted distinctive flavors to cooked ground beef [18], as well the addition of garlic or onion greatly increased the amounts of sulfur volatiles and masked or changed off-odor and off-flavor from cooked ground beef [19]. Proverbially, lemon is often used to remove smells of meat in Western cooking, while Chinese prickly ash, cumin, and ginger serve a similar function in Chinese cooking [20].

Previous studies reported that various volatile compounds in meat product originated from spices [21, 22]. Roasted mutton is a widely acclaimed traditional meat product in China. However, the change in the amount and composition of volatile compounds from meat product by adding each spice has not been reported. Therefore, this study was carried out to investigate the change in the amount and composition of the volatile compounds emanating from roasted lamb/mutton with added spices such as peppertree prickly ash, Amomum tsao-ko, cumin, or ginger, which are Chinese familiar spices used as habitual and classical additives in meat products [23–26].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials and Sample Preparation

An internal standard 1,2-dichlorobenzene purchased from Dr. Ehrenstorfer was used for the determination of the content of volatile matters. All other chemicals and solvents were of analytical grade. Chinese prickly ash (Zanthoxylum bungeanum Maxim.), ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe), cumin (Cuminum cyminum L.), and Amomum tsao-ko were purchased from a local market in Shihezi (HaoJiaxiang Department Store, China). The hind legs and tail oil of Xinjiang sheep meeting the unified sales standards were provided by Xinjiang Beibei Ehe Grassland Food Co., Ltd.

2.2. Sample Preparation and Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction Conditions

For the roasted mutton samples, the hind legs’ meat and tail oil were cut into 2 × 2 × 2 cm³ blocks. Each container was added with a spice to test roasted mutton with one of four spices, and the mixture was pickled for 120 min. The mince of the fifth batch was salted without adding spice and was used as a control. The kinds of spices used in experiments were encoded as follows: sample A (1.0% salt), sample B (0.3% Chinese prickly ash), sample C (1.3% A. tsao-ko), sample D (1.5% cumin), and sample E (1.8% ginger). The meat and suet were put in a preheated oven and baked for 15 min at 210°C. The roasted mutton was mashed until the size of a grain of rice using a DFT-100 Portable high-speed Chinese medicine pulverizer (Longtuo Equipment Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China). Aliquots (5 g) of comminuted rusted mutton were transferred into 15 mL gas-tight glass vessels (Supelco) and saturated with 1 mL NaCl solution. Prior to analysis, 5 μL of 1,2-dichlorobenzene (0.624 g/mL in methanol), as an internal standard, was added and mixed. The flask was shaken while the mixture was added at a uniform rate. After being equilibrated at 50°C for 25 min until the sealed bottle had small water droplets attached to the inner wall, the sample was extracted with 75 μm CAR/PDMS fibre [27, 28] by continuous heating and agitation for 25 min.

After extraction, the fibre was inserted into the GC injector at 250°C for 7 min to desorb analytes. Prior to extraction, the vial of the meat sample was preheated and shaken at intervals to facilitate the volatiles into headspace and to simulate a reheating treatment prior to consumption.

2.3. Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Analysis

Chromatographic separation of the analytes was achieved with an Agilent 5977A gas chromatograph with 7890B mass selective detector (Agilent Technologies, USA) with the injector temperature of 280°C, equipped with a HP-INNOWAX column (30 × 0.25 mm i.d. fused-silica capillary column chemically bonded with a 0.25-μm cross-bond, 5% diphenyl/95% dimethyl polysiloxane), using highly pure helium as the carrier gas (99.99%) with a constant flow rate of 1.3 mL/min. The GC oven temperature was initially held at 40°C for 8 min, increased at a rate of 5°C/min to 120°C, and then increased to 240°C at 20°C/min, where it was held for an additional 15 min. Helium was used as the carrier gas at a flow rate of 1.3 mL/min in split mode (1 : 20 split ratio). The hydrogen flow rate was 30 mL/min. The MS was acquired in full-scan mode, and the eluate was introduced through the transfer line into the mass spectrometer where the molecules were ionized with a current beam of 70 eV. The temperature of the source and the detector were 150°C and 230°C, respectively, while the MS transfer line was kept at 280°C with a solvent delay of 1 min. A mixture of n-alkanes (C7–C40, Sinopharm Chemical, Shanghai, China) was analyzed under the same conditions to calculate the retention indices of the volatiles.

The data whose matching degrees were more than 80 could be used for qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis. For quantitative analysis, the roasted lamb sample was analyzed using 1,2-dichlorobenzene (0.624 g/mL in methanol) as the internal standard. For qualitative analysis, the identification of the components was performed by matching their mass spectra with the Wiley and NIST 14 mass spectral database (NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology), relative retention index library, and authentic reference samples. The LRI (Linear Retention Index) according to the method of HVDD [29] and the RI (Retention Index) were evaluated by using the following equation [30]:

where tRi is the retention time of an unknown compound i, z represents the number of carbon atoms of the n-alkane eluted before the unknown i, tRz denotes the number of carbon atoms of the n-alkane eluted after the unknown compound z, and tRz and tRz+1 are the retention times of the n-alkanes with carbon numbers of z and z + 1.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

All analyses were conducted in triplicate. Each roasted lamb sample (object) was considered as an assembly of 88 variables represented by the chemical data. The results reported were the average of these three replicates, and standard deviations were performed with SPSS23.0 software (SPSS, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), and the Multivariate Statistical Package (MVSP) (Kovach Computing Services, Wales, UK) was used for PCA analysis.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Multiple Comparisons of Concentrations of Volatile Substances

Unambiguous identification of 53 of the 88 relevant VOCs was performed by using NIST 14 and correlation with linear retention indices (LRIs) reported in the literature, while the remaining 35 were tentatively identified by using mass spectral databases only (Table 1). Free aroma compounds in VOCs, listed in Table 1, largely belonged to terpenoids or their derivatives. They were classified as aldehydes (19), ketones (7), alcohols (18), ethers (5) (e.g., estragole), phenols (5) (e.g., eugenol), acids and esters (8), terpenes (14), and others (14) (e.g., furans). Among them, 14 substances were found in five samples at the same time, i.e., (z)-4-decenal, nonanal, benzaldehyde, 1-hexanol, 1-octen-3-ol, 1-heptanol, 2-ethyl-1-hexanol, 2-methyl-3-furanthiol, dimethyl ether, butylated hydroxytoluene, 4-methylphenol, eugenol, 4-methylnonanoic acid, and 2-pinene.

Table 1: VOCs in roasted mutton treated with different spices detected by GC-MS.

Number
Volatile substances1,2
LRI³
KI
Sample A: only salt (ng/g)
Sample B: Chinese prickly ash (ng/g)
Sample C: Amomum tsao-ko (ng/g)
Sample D: cumin (ng/g)
Sample E: ginger (ng/g)
Qualitative method⁴

Aldehyde

z1
Hexanal
1093
1087
38.234 ± 7.713c
1.029 ± 0.119a
0.200 ± 0.040a
13.344 ± 2.224b
3.757 ± 0.746a
MS/LRI

z2
3-Methy-l-pentanal
1026
1002
0.026 ± 0.005b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS/LRI

z3
Heptanal
1183
1195
1.652 ± 0.335c
1.332 ± 0.278c
0.000 ± 0.000a
1.467 ± 0.256c
0.713 ± 0.144b
MS/LRI

z4
(E,E)-2,4-Decadienal
1826
1844
0.033 ± 0.006a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.091 ± 0.018b
0.211 ± 0.035c
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS/LRI

z5
Octanal
1287
1280
0.439 ± 0.115b
0.77 ± 0.207b
0.000 ± 0.000a
1.114 ± 0.253c
0.473 ± 0.122b
MS/LRI

z6
(z)-4-Decenal
N/A
1546
0.032 ± 0.055a
0.116 ± 0.03b
0.023 ± 0.006a
0.935 ± 0.219c
0.675 ± 0.176b
MS

z7
Nonanal
1387
1403
1.330 ± 0.348b
1.495 ± 0.401b
0.126 ± 0.034a
1.232 ± 0.279b
0.547 ± 0.141a
MS/LRI

z8
Pentanal
988
978
2.461 ± 0.434c
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
1.366 ± 0.228b
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS/LRI

z9
3,7-Dimethyl-6-octenal
1488
1479
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.021 ± 0.004b
MS/LRI

z10
Decanal
1506
1497
0.007 ± 0.012a
0.048 ± 0.010c
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.027 ± 0.005b
0.077 ± 0.015d
MS/LRI

z11
Benzaldehyde
1546
1530
0.186 ± 0.051a
0.519 ± 0.105c
0.263 ± 0.053ab
0.802 ± 0.140d
0.431 ± 0.087bc
MS/LRI

z12
Isocyclocitral
N/A
1546
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
1.748 ± 0.358b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS

z13
Z-Citral
1693
1686
0.037 ± 0.032a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.422 ± 0.084b
0.094 ± 0.024a
MS/LRI

z14
p-Menth-1-en-7-al
1744
1758
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.089 ± 0.018b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS/LRI

z15
Cuminic
1775
1783
5.026 ± 1.383a
0.811 ± 0.161a
25.028 ± 5.28b
2.529 ± 0.552a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS/LRI

z16
Alpha-methylcinnamaldehyde
N/A
1998
0.413 ± 0.114c
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.114 ± 0.024a
0.287 ± 0.065b
0.022 ± 0.006a
MS

z17
4-Methoxy-benzaldehyde
2055
2061
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.061 ± 0.013b
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS/LRI

z18
3-Phenyl-2-propenal
N/A
2033
0.036 ± 0.063a
0.127 ± 0.024b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.194 ± 0.044b
0.135 ± 0.034b
MS

z19
Acetaldehyde
707
715
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.005 ± 0.001b
MS/LRI

Terpene

z20
4(10)-Thujene
N/A
1627
1.102 ± 0.039a
4.159 ± 0.249ab
2.123 ± 0.025a
1.374 ± 0.045a
8.215 ± 2.061b
MS

z21
Myrcene
1170
1168
0.554 ± 0.051a
4.756 ± 0.959b
0.398 ± 0.080a
0.703 ± 0.026a
1.094 ± 0.0190a
MS/LRI

z22
2-Pinene
1036
1028
2.228 ± 0.043a
3.572 ± 0.721b
2.062 ± 0.012a
2.425 ± 0.073a
3.954 ± 0.192b
MS/LRI

z23
(+)-α-Phellandrene
1165
1158
0.355 ± 0.074a
1.641 ± 0.011b
0.763 ± 0.061a
0.181 ± 0.031a
2.352 ± 0.171c
MS/LRI

z24
γ-Terpinene
1221
1253
1.645 ± 0.049a
3.742 ± 1.065b
2.407 ± 0.417b
1.382 ± 0.053a
9.493 ± 1.060c
MS/LRI

z25
Alpha-terpinene
1186
1182
0.018 ± 0.019a
3.292 ± 0.937b
0.309 ± 0.062a
0.092 ± 0.016a
0.498 ± 0.100a
MS/LRI

z26
(+) (E)-Caryophyllene
607
613
0.434 ± 0.082a
2.183 ± 0.613b
3.081 ± 0.016b
0.352 ± 0.037a
2.217 ± 0.044b
MS/LRI

z27
(E,Z)-2,6-Dimethyl-2,4,6-octatriene
1382
1369
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.765 ± 0.218b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.107 ± 0.020a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS/LRI

z28
2,2-Dimethyl-3-methylene-norbornane
1075
1071
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
1.426 ± 0.288b
MS/LRI

z29
Delta-cadinene
1798
1769
0.000 ± 0.000a
1.621 ± 0.461b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.064 ± 0.013a
MS/LRI

z30
2,4-Dimethyl-styren
1414
1432
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.024 ± 0.005a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.209 ± 0.035b
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS/LRI

z31
D-Limonene
1210
1221
0.000 ± 0.000a
12.376 ± 3.524b
0.505 ± 0.102a
0.662 ± 0.114a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS/LRI

z32
1-Hexadecene
N/A
1602
0.036 ± 0.007a
0.121 ± 0.035b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS

z33
Isopropenyltoluene
N/A
198
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.305 ± 0.087b
0.065 ± 0.013a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS

Ketone

z34
2-Heptanone
1191
1197
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.199 ± 0.032b
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS/LRI

z35
2,3-Butanedione
987
772
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.386 ± 0.079b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS/LRI

z36
2,3-Octanedione
N/A
987
1.390 ± 0.363b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.076 ± 0.02a
0.344 ± 0.078a
0.126 ± 0.033a
MS

z37
α-(E)-Ionone
N/A
1865
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.063 ± 0.013b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS

z38
1-Phenyl-ethanone
1661
1646
0.112 ± 0.028b
0.087 ± 0.017b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS/LRI

z39
Isopiperitone
1743
1736
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.691 ± 0.133b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.607 ± 0.12b
0.122 ± 0.031a
MS/LRI

z40
Carvone
1749
1745
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.159 ± 0.031b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS/LRI

z41
3-Hydroxy-2-butanone
1295
1287
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.02 ± 0.004b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS/LRI

Alcohol

z42
Eucalyptol
1210/1216
1232
0.280 ± 0.060a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
4.194 ± 0.941b
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS/LRI

z43
1-Pentanol
1232/1237
1246
1.636 ± 0.353c
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.234 ± 0.047a
0.921 ± 0.207b
0.185 ± 0.047a
MS/LRI

z44
(Z)-2-Penten-1-ol,
1334[49]
1311
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.010 ± 0.002b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS/LRI

z45
2-Heptanol
N/A
1320
0.015 ± 0.003a
0.030 ± 0.006a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.363 ± 0.093b
MS

z46
1-Hexanol
1341/1360
1359
0.408 ± 0.082c
0.267 ± 0.054b
0.344 ± 0.069bc
0.212 ± 0.045ab
0.117 ± 0.031a
MS/LRI

z47
Geraniol
N/A
1722
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.057 ± 0.011b
0.118 ± 0.029c
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS

z48
2,4,4-Trimethyl-1-pentanol
N/A
1025
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.008 ± 0.002 b
MS

z49
p-Cymen-7-ol
2095
2113
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.018 ± 0.004b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS/LRI

z50
1-Octen-3-ol
1451
1454
0.323 ± 0.070b
0.264 ± 0.056b
0.057 ± 0.012a
0.230 ± 0.054b
0.069 ± 0.015a
MS/LRI

z51
1-Heptanol
1456
1446
0.153 ± 0.031d
0.051 ± 0.011b
0.008 ± 0.002a
0.113 ± 0.026c
0.032 ± 0.007ab
MS/LRI

z52
2-Octyn-1-ol
N/A
1368
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.125 ± 0.025b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS

z53
2-Ethyl-1-hexanol,
1490
1484
1.028 ± 0.222a
1.813 ± 0.383b
1.936 ± 0.391b
0.566 ± 0.139a
0.660 ± 0.133a
MS/LRI

z54
2-Methyl-3-furanthiol
N/A
1318
0.235 ± 0.024c
0.108 ± 0.011ab
0.235 ± 0.026c
0.143 ± 0.035b
0.082 ± 0.016a
MS

z55
DL-2,3-Butanediol
1553
1569
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.125 ± 0.025b
0.016 ± 0.004a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS/LRI

z56
4-Terpineol
1630
1642
0.000 ± 0.000a
3.206 ± 0.647b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.212 ± 0.044a
MS/LRI

z57
α-Terpinol
1736
1742
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.687 ± 0.139c
0.107 ± 0.022a
0.285 ± 0.070b
0.702 ± 0.142c
MS/LRI

z58
(E)-4-Hexen-3-ol
N/A
1604
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.011 ± 0.002b
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS

Ether

z59
p-Propyl-anisole
N/A
1702
0.098 ± 0.020c
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.033 ± 0.007b
0.088 ± 0.015c
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS

z60
Anethol
1847
1851
3.355 ± 0.677c
0.641 ± 0.129a
1.763 ± 0.356b
3.802 ± 0.656c
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS/LRI

z61
Estragole
N/A
1641
2.191 ± 0.343b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.100 ± 0.020a
1.989 ± 0.421b
0.146 ± 0.030a
MS

z62
Tetraethyleneglycol
N/A
1722
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.064 ± 0.016c
0.028 ± 0.006b
MS

z63
Dimethyl
N/A
543
6.645 ± 1.341ab
11.204 ± 2.26c
4.407 ± 0.889a
9.382 ± 2.419b
5.493 ± 1.131a
MS

Phenol

z64
Phenol
2032
2047
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.416 ± 0.084b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.093 ± 0.024a
0.019 ± 0.004a
MS/LRI

z65
Butylated
1920
1911
0.065 ± 0.013a
0.467 ± 0.094c
0.506 ± 0.108c
0.121 ± 0.031a
0.263 ± 0.054b
MS/LRI

z66
4-Methylphenol
2079
2978
1.183 ± 0.239a
8.217 ± 2.247b
1.318 ± 0.281a
1.453 ± 0.375a
1.986 ± 0.409a
MS/LRI

z67
Eugenol
2156
2162
0.489 ± 0.099a
1.696 ± 0.464b
0.045 ± 0.01a
0.187 ± 0.048a
0.137 ± 0.028a
MS/LRI

z68
Isoeugenol
N/A
2299
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.039 ± 0.008a
0.147 ± 0.038b
0.137 ± 0.028a
MS

Acid and ester

z69
3-Methyl-1-butanol
N/A
1170
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.506 ± 0.131b
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS

z70
trans-Geranyl
1765
1781
0.000 ± 0.000a
1.484 ± 0.406c
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.490 ± 0.126b
0.092 ± 0.019a
MS/LRI

z71
α-Terpenyl
1685
1692
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.658 ± 0.180b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.142 ± 0.029a
MS/LRI

z72
4-Methylnonanoicacid
N/A
1302
2.98 ± 0.302c
2.701 ± 0.160c
1.107 ± 0.113a
1.742 ± 0.085b
0.995 ± 0.101a
MS

z73
16-Methyl-heptadecanecarboxylic
N/A
1590
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.100 ± 0.021b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS

z74
n-Hexadecanoic
2930
2922
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.158 ± 0.034b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS/LRI

z75
Octadecanoic
N/A
3132
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.433 ± 0.092b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS

z76
Acetic
1460
1459
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.038 ± 0.008b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS/LRI

Others

z77
3-(Chloromethyl)-furan
N/A
1365
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.010 ± 0.003a
0.527 ± 0.105c
0.076 ± 0.013a
0.343 ± 0.069 b
MS

z78
2-Acetyl-1,3-dioxolane
N/A
943
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.004 ± 0.001b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS

z79
Docosane
N/A
371
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.007 ± 0.002a
0.284 ± 0.057b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.009 ± 0.002a
MS

z80
Deoxy-celidoniol
N/A
460
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.018 ± 0.004b
MS

z81
Tricosane
N/A
376
0.042 ± 0.008b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS

z82
Triacontane
N/A
469
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.051 ± 0.01b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS

z83
Tetracosane
N/A
398
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.124 ± 0.025b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS

z84
Heptacosane
N/A
436
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.472 ± 0.095b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS

z85
Pentyl-oxirane
N/A
1102
0.039 ± 0.008b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.009 ± 0.002a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS

z86
Hexane
N/A
614
0.123 ± 0.037b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.462 ± 0.077c
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS

z87
Octane
N/A
819
0.067 ± 0.014b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.013 ± 0.003a
0.166 ± 0.028c
0.000 ± 0.000a
MS

z88
1-Methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-benzene
1281
1289
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.039 ± 0.011a
3.223 ± 0.688b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.068 ± 0.014a
MS/LRI

¹Concentrations are expressed in milligrams per 5 g roasted mutton, as mean ± SD of duplicate determinations on three roasted mutton-making trials. Means in the same row bearing the same letters do not differ significantly at . ²Total amount of VOCs extracted by SPME with fibre of CAR/PDMS from samples was calculated by using 1,2-dichlorobenzene as internal reference. ³Data were collected from the NIST Webbook of Chemistry. ⁴MS + LRI + Std, mass spectrum and LRI agree with those of authentic compounds; MS/LRI, mass spectrum identified using the NIST Mass Spectral Database and LRI agrees with the NIST14 libraries; N/A, not available.

The volatile substances of roasted mutton were more abundant in spices-treated samples. From Figure 1, it can be stated that the types of VOCs detected in sample A without adding spices were the least with a higher content in aldehydes and a lower content in terpenes and other compounds. All the other samples (i.e., those with added spices) were similar with small differences. In particular, the cumin-treated sample (sample D) was the strongest in the content of aldehydes, followed by the Amomum tsao-ko-treated sample (sample C). Additionally, the Chinese prickly ash-treated sample (sample B) was the strongest in content of terpenes, followed by ginger-treated sample (sample E). Moreover, Amomum tsao-ko-treated sample (sample C) had the most obvious growth, followed by Chinese prickly ash-treated sample (sample B).

Figure 1: Relative percentage content, standard deviations (n = 3 samples and triplicate analysis), and quantity of substance of free aroma compounds of roasted mutton obtained in independent experiments with four kinds of spices (sample A, only salt; sample B, Chinese prickly ash; sample C, Amomum tsao-ko; sample D, cumin; sample E, ginger). Different colors indicate different compound classes, and the area size of the rectangle is different due to different contents.

The main sources of aldehydes are lipid oxidation and degradation, as well as Strecker amino acid reactions. Most of aldehydes detected in roast meat are hexanal, heptanal, pentanal, (z)-4-decenal, benzaldehyde, and 3-phenyl-2-propenal. Zhao et al. [31] proposed that nonanal, hexanal, and octanal in stewed mutton were the key aroma substances. Xu et al. [32] found that (E)-2-enealdehydes can significantly affect the formation of thiols and heterocyclic thiols and compounds in Maillard reaction systems. Su et al. [33] showed that the flavor compounds of reheated refrigerated roast whole-sheep were mainly aldehydes. It was worth mentioning that a large amount of hexanal is generated during lipid oxidation at low temperatures, while (E,E)-2,4-decadienal is more easily oxidized under high temperatures over a long time.

The olfactory and perceived thresholds of ketone are much higher than that of their isomeric aldehyde; therefore, their contributions to mutton flavor are relatively small. Nevertheless, ketone should still be the focus of attention, such as DL-2,3-butanediol and 2-methyl-ketene (meat and strong fat smell) [34].

Higher alcohols have usually a strong, pungent smell; nevertheless, the aliphatic aldehydes have a different odor, from the ripe apple (acetaldehyde) to a pleasant fresh odor as the cucumber (C8–C18 aldehydes), whereas the aromatic aldehydes (benzaldehyde) have odor of bitter almonds. Alcohols are mainly derived from lipid oxidation. The main contents of alcohols are saturated alcohols in our experiments and tests, such as 1-pentanol, 2-heptanol, 1-heptanol and so on, which have higher olfactory thresholds and contribute less to the overall flavor of the roasted mutton compared with unsaturated alcohols, such as 1-octen-3-ol. 1-Octen-3-ol has a pleasant mushroom flavor and a grassy scent and plays an important role in the aroma of roast meat [35].

Fatty acids are substances produced by the oxidation of aldehydes and ketones or the degradation of fatty acids, which can effectively modify flavor. There is a high content of 4-methylnonanoic acid and acetic acid in roasted mutton, which, at low concentrations, produce the fat flavor, while at high concentrations may be part of the smell of mutton.

3.2. Principal Component Analysis

The discriminating power of all the 88 compounds listed in Table 1 was tested by means of the analysis of variance and the number of homogeneous groups (HG) formed at statistical level, according to the Fisher’s least significant difference method applied to their respective relative areas. Among these compounds, 27 VOCs (z1, z3, z4, z5, z6, z8, z10, z11, z16, z23, z24, z43, z46, z47, z51, z54, z57, z59, z60, z62, z63, z65, z70, z72, z77, z86, and z87) were selected by significant comparison and established three HG to apply other statistical analysis such as principal component analysis (PCA), and the data were square-root transformed [36] and standardized, in accordance with Vararu et al. [37]. Taking z1 and z2 as an example, z1 was selected since there were three HG of a, b, and c, while z2 was not selected since there were two HGs of a and b.

The loading plot to the projection was based on 88 VOCs and generated from the data matrix (Figure 2). As shown in Figure 2(a), by principal component analysis, 5 samples were classified and the repeated results of the tests were appropriate. Five samples were clearly distinguished, with three principal components representing a total of 88.31% of the data information—PC1 explained 49.13% of the data change, PC2 explained 20.97% of the data change, and PC3 explained 18.31% of the data change.

Figure 2: The loading plot to the projection was based on 27 volatile compounds. The first two principal components (PC1 and PC2) explain 42.40% and 28.56% of the total variance across the data collection, respectively. 27 VOCs (z1, z3, z4, z5, z6, z8, z10, z11, z16, z28, z31, z33, z37, z40, z43, z45, z46, z48, z49, z51, z55, z57, z65, z66, z67, z77, z86, and z87) were selected by significant comparison and established three homogeneous groups (HG) formed at statistical level to apply principal component analysis (PCA) after that the data were square-root transformed (sample A, only salt; sample B, Chinese prickly ash; sample C, Amomum tsao-ko; sample D, cumin; sample E, ginger).

It can be seen from Figure 2(b) that after 27-dimensional analysis of the volatile substances in three significant grades, the two principal components represent 70.96% of the data information—PC1 (42, 40% of the variability) and PC2 (28.56% of the variability). The projection of 15 volatile substances in the load matrix exceeds 0.25.

The projection coefficient of load matrix can comprehensively reflect the influence of each volatile flavor substance in roast lamb on each principal component. The larger the projection coefficient of load matrix, the stronger the representativeness of the principal component to the variable. Therefore, 15 kinds of volatile substances with a projection of more than 0.25 in the load matrix (Table 2) were used as indicators to explore the effect of adding spices on VOCs of roasted mutton [38]. As can be seen from Table 2, a total of 5 substances out of 15 substances were detected simultaneously in 5 samples: (z)-4-decenal, benzaldehyde, (+)-α-phellandrene, 2-methyl-3-furanthiol, and dimethyl ether are detected simultaneously in five samples. Among them, hexanal is a degradation product of linoleic acid, probably because of the higher content of mutton fat, showing apple aroma and raw oil flavor. Benzaldehyde probably comes from the degradation of phenylalanine [39] and exhibits a fruity, bitter almond flavor that gives a strong fatty smell to roast meat. Azelaic acid (fruity aroma) is a product of oleic acid oxidation. Hexanal, octanal (green peel flavor and fat flavor), enanthaldehyde (nutty, fruity, and fat flavor), n-valeraldehyde (pungent), and nonanal (rose, citrus, and strong fat flavor) are significant aroma components of roasted mutton [27, 40].

Table 2: 15 VOCs with a projection of more than 0.25 in the load matrix established PCA in roasted mutton and their sensory descriptors.

Number¹
VOCs
Sample A: only salt (ng/g)
Sample B: Chinese prickly ash (ng/g)
Sample C: Amomum tsao-ko (ng/g)
Sample D: cumin (ng/g)
Sample E: ginger (ng/g)
PC1
PC2
Percepts²

z3
Heptanal
1.652 ± 0.335c
1.332 ± 0.278c
0.000 ± 0.000a
1.467 ± 0.256c
0.713 ± 0.144b
0.098
−0.304
Fat, citrus, rancid

z5
Octanal
0.439 ± 0.115b
0.77 ± 0.207b
0.000 ± 0.000a
1.114 ± 0.253c
0.473 ± 0.122b
0.044
−0.362
Fat, soap, lemon, green

z6
(z)-4-Decenal
0.032 ± 0.055a
0.116 ± 0.03b
0.023 ± 0.006a
0.935 ± 0.219c
0.675 ± 0.176b
−0.027
−0.28
Green, must

z8
Pentanal
2.461 ± 0.434c
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.000 ± 0.000a
1.366 ± 0.228b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.266
−0.088
Almond, malt, pungent

z10
Decanal
0.007 ± 0.012a
0.048 ± 0.010c
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.027 ± 0.005b
0.077 ± 0.015d
−0.151
−0.296
Soap, orange peel, tallow

z11
Benzaldehyde
0.186 ± 0.051a
0.519 ± 0.105c
0.263 ± 0.053ab
0.802 ± 0.140d
0.431 ± 0.087bc
−0.034
−0.289
Almond, burnt sugar

z16
Alpha-methylcinnamaldehyde
0.413 ± 0.114c
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.114 ± 0.024a
0.287 ± 0.065 b
0.022 ± 0.006a
0.268
0.045
N/A

z23
(+)-α-Phellandrene
0.355 ± 0.074a
1.641 ± 0.011b
0.763 ± 0.061a
0.181 ± 0.031a
2.352 ± 0.171c
−0.268
−0.014
Balsamic

z43
1-Pentanol
1.636 ± 0.353c
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.234 ± 0.047a
0.921 ± 0.207b
0.185 ± 0.047a
0.255
0.004
MS/LRI

z54
2-Methyl-3-furanthiol
0.235 ± 0.024c
0.108 ± 0.011ab
0.235 ± 0.026c
0.143 ± 0.035b
0.082 ± 0.016a
0.194
0.264
Meat

z59
p-Propyl-anisole
0.098 ± 0.020c
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.033 ± 0.007b
0.088 ± 0.015c
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.275
0.048
N/A

z60
Anethol
3.355 ± 0.677c
0.641 ± 0.129a
1.763 ± 0.356b
3.802 ± 0.656c
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.264
0.029
N/A

z63
Dimethyl
6.645 ± 1.341ab
11.204 ± 2.26c
4.407 ± 0.889a
9.382 ± 2.419b
5.493 ± 1.131a
0.02
−0.282
N/A

z70
trans-Geranyl
0.000 ± 0.000a
1.484 ± 0.406c
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.490 ± 0.126b
0.092 ± 0.019a
−0.094
−0.257
N/A

z87
Octane
0.067 ± 0.014b
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.013 ± 0.003a
0.166 ± 0.028c
0.000 ± 0.000a
0.256
−0.081
N/A

¹15 VOCs with a projection of more than 0.25 in the load matrix obtained by PCA were used as indicators to explore the effect of adding spices on VOCs of roasted mutton. ²Odor descriptor source: http://www.flavornet.org/index.html. N/A, not available.

Among them, the contents of z1, z8, z28, z16, z40, and z45 in sample A are relatively high. However, almost no z1 is detected in sample B and sample C probably due to the addition of Chinese prickly ash and Amomum tsao-ko, 4-terpineol and α-terpineol are important volatile substances in pepper, while α-terpinol and geraniol are important materials in A. tsao-ko [41]. Similarly, it can be speculated that the addition of Chinese prickly ash, Amomum tsao-ko, and ginger may result in a decrease in z8 and z28, while the addition of Chinese prickly ash and ginger may result in a significant decrease in z16.

Obviously, the content of z3, z5, z49, z11, and z10 in sample B is higher than that of other samples; trans-geranyl acetate, 2-pinene in Chinese prickly ash, and 2-pinene and gamma-terpinene were reported by Iseli et al. [42]. p-Propyl-anisole, dimethyl ether, p-propyl-anisole, and trans-geranyl acetate were provided by pepper, thus contributing to the aroma structure of roasted mutton.

The content of z40 in sample C was higher than that in the others. A. tsao-ko essential oils mainly consisted of monoterpene hydrocarbons and oxygenated monoterpenes such as gamma-terpinene, terpineol, geraniol, and geranial [41]. It may be because the terpenoids contribute to the production of 2-methyl-3-furanthiol in meat products at high temperatures.

The other 13 substances in sample D except z10 were higher than in the other samples. Aromatic compounds mainly come from Maillard reactions and thermal degradation of amino acids and thiamine [25], such as ρ-cymene, probably coming from a high-temperature change in cumin.

The content of (z)-4-decenal in sample E is higher than that in the other samples. It is noteworthy at this point that α-terpinol and decanal maybe emanating from ginger mostly. Pang et al. [43] consider α-pinene and eucalyptol were important substances in ginger.

Overall, with the addition of only salt (sample A), Chinese prickly ash (sample B), Amomum tsao-ko (sample C), cumin (sample D), and ginger (sample E), the content of volatiles responsible for the presence of a mutton odor (such as hexanal, heptanal, pentanal, (z)-4-decenal, benzaldehyde, p-propyl-anisole, and dimethyl ether) was not significantly decreased, and in fact some volatiles increased in amount.

The roasted lamb after adding spices shows a unique flavor due to the increased content of (z)-4-nonenal, benzaldehyde, decanal, and benzaldehyde.

4. Conclusions

Some VOCs of food product are not detected by consumers because of their thresholds and interactions with other compounds, but they are also important for food flavor. The tendency of ever-growing and changing consumer preferences for meat products are particularly worthy of academic investigation, including the effect of adding different spices on the quality of roast meat. In order to grasp the roasted mutton flesh flavor, SPME/GC-MS and PCA were used. The study focussed on 15 significant volatile compounds. Among these, several aldehyde- and alcohol-containing compounds, as well as terpenoids, were identified and considered essential for the flavor profile. It can be postulated that aroma compounds including aldehydes, alcohols, ether, esters, and ketone resulted in subtle differences between the samples with different spices. The masking function of Chinese prickly ash, Amomum tsao-ko, cumin, and ginger of the astringency odor was ascribed to “sensational deodorizing.”

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article and the supplementary information file.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program (Grant no. 2016YFD0400705), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 2016M591029), and Key Research and Development Projects of Shaanxi Province, China (Grant no. 2019NY-147).

Supplementary Materials

The supplementary material contains the data of Figure 1 and data of Figure 2. (Supplementary Materials)

References

G. Feeley-Harnik, “Religion and food: an anthropological perspective1,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 565–582, 1995.

R. A. U. K. Wijethunga, S. Premaratne, and B. L. Peiris, “Goat management systems in Bulathkohupitiya veterinary range,” Tropical Agricultural Research, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 441–447, 2015.

C. Sañudo, E. Muela, and M. D. M. Campo, “Key factors involved in lamb quality from farm to fork in Europe,” Journal of Integrative Agriculture, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 1919–1930, 2013.

V. Resconi, A. Escudero, and M. Campo, “The development of aromas in ruminant meat,” Molecules, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 6748–6781, 2013.

C. J. Yang, W. Ding, L. J. Ma, and R. Jia, “Discrimination and characterization of different intensities of goaty flavor in goat milk by means of an electronic nose,” Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 55–67, 2015.

S. Kaffarnik, Y. Kayademir, C. Heid, and W. Vetter, “Concentrations of volatile 4-alkyl-branched fatty acids in sheep and goat milk and dairy products,” Journal of Food Science, vol. 79, no. 11, pp. 2209–2214, 2014.

J. Song, Y. Yuan, Z. Wang et al., “Suitability of different cuts of lamb for roasting,” Food Science, vol. 38, no. 15, pp. 108–114, 2017.

M. P. Gianelli, V. Salazar, L. Mojica, and M. Friz, “Volatile compounds present in traditional meat products (charqui and Longaniza sausage) in Chile,” Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 603–612, 2012.

B. Lieske and G. Konrad, “Protein hydrolysis-the key to meat flavoring systems,” Food Reviews International, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 287–312, 1994.

D. S. Mottram, “Flavour formation in meat and meat products: a review,” Food Chemistry, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 415–424, 1998.

J. J. Jamora and K. S. Rhee, “Flavor of lamb and mutton,” in Quality Attributes of Muscle Foods, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1999.

P. M. Brown, “Spices, seasonings, and flavors,” in Ingredients in Meat Products, T. Rodrigo, Ed., pp. 199–210, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2009.

S. Jinap, S. Z. Iqbal, N. H. Talib, and N. D. S. Hasnol, “Heterocyclic aromatic amines in deep fried lamb meat: the influence of spices marination and sensory quality,” Journal of Food Science & Technology, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 1411–1417, 2016.

M. Issaoui, G. Flamini, S. Souid et al., “How the addition of spices and herbs to virgin olive oil to produce flavored oils affects consumer acceptance,” Natural Product Communications, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 775–780, 2016.

K. Hirasa and M. Takemasa, Spice Science and Technology, Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, USA, 1998.

D. Balev, N. Nenov, S. Dragoev et al., “Comparison of the effect of new spice freon extracts towards ground spices and antioxidants for improving the quality of Bulgarian-type dry-cured sausage,” Polish Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 59–66, 2017.

S. Jung, C. Jo, I. S. Kim, K. C. Nam, D. U. Ahn, and K. H. Lee, “The influence of spices on the volatile compounds of cooked beef patty,” Korean Journal for Food Science of Animal Resources, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 166–171, 2014.

M. N. Vasavada, S. Dwivedi, and D. Cornforth, “Evaluation of garam masala spices and phosphates as antioxidants in cooked ground beef,” Journal of Food Science, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. C292–C297, 2006.

S. Y. Han, E. J. Lee, H. M. Sun, H. D. Paik, and D. U. Ahn, “Addition of garlic or onion before irradiation on lipid oxidation, volatiles and sensory characteristics of cooked ground beef,” Meat Science, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 286–291, 2011.

J. Li, Z. Tu, L. Zhang et al., “The effect of ginger and garlic addition during cooking on the volatile profile of grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) soup,” Journal of Food Science & Technology, vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 1–18, 2016.

E. Demirok, M. Kiralan, and A. Ángel, “Determination and classification of volatile compounds of pastirma using solid phase microextraction/gas chromatography/mass spectrometry,” Journal of Microbiology Biotechnology & Food Sciences, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 105–109, 2013.

G. P. Juma, M. Ngigi, I. Baltenweck, and A. G. Drucker, “Consumer demand for sheep and goat meat in Kenya,” Small Ruminant Research, vol. 90, no. 1–3, pp. 135–138, 2010.

B. M. Naveena and S. K. Mendiratta, “The tenderization of buffalo meat using ginger extract,” Journal of Muscle Foods, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 235–244, 2010.

G. Zhang, J. Cheng, X. Yue, M. Yu, and J. Ding, “Chinese prickly ash affects the microflora of harbin air-dried sausage and therefore its flavor,” Food Science, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 184–190, 2017.

S. Wu, G. Zhao, Y. Liu et al., “Effect of Amomum tsao-ko on the formation of volatile flavor compounds of stewed chicken,” Food Science & Technology, vol. 39, no. 07, pp. 112–117, 2014.

G. Amin, “Cumin,” Handbook of Herbs and Spices, vol. 1, Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, UK, 2012.

J. Xie, B. Sun, F. Zheng, and S. Wang, “Volatile flavor constituents in roasted pork of mini-pig,” Food Chemistry, vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 506–514, 2008.

Y. Shi, H. Jin, Y. Yang et al., “Herbal verification of medicinal Amomum tsao-ko,” Medicinal Plant, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 16–19, 2014.

H. van Den Dool and P. D. Kratz, “A generalization of the retention index system including linear temperature programmed gas-liquid partition chromatography,” Journal of Chromatography A, vol. 11, pp. 463–471, 1963.

S. Song, X. Zhang, K. Hayat, Z. Xiao, Y. Niu, and K. Eric, “Coordinating fingerprint determination of solid-phase microextraction/gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and chemometric methods for quality control of oxidized tallow,” Journal of Chromatography A, vol. 1278, pp. 145–152, 2013.

M. Zhao, J. Zhao, and L. Hou, “Characterization of the aroma compounds from stewing lamb,” Science and Technology of Food Industry, vol. 37, no. 19, pp. 284–293, 2016.

Y. Xu, J. Li, H. Zhao et al., “Effect of (E)-2-Octenal on volatile products derived from maillard model reaction systems,” Food Science, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 50–54, 2014.

G. Su, F. Wang, X. Liu et al., “Flavor compounds of refrigerated roasted whole sheep reheated in an electric infrared oven,” Meat Research, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 32–36, 2017.

J. Xie, B. Sun, F. Zheng et al., “Study on thermal reaction Technology with oxidized lamb fat appended to develop characteristic mutton flavor,” Food & Fermentation Industries, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1–5, 2007.

D. B. S. Min, K. Ina, R. J. Peterson et al., “Preliminary identification of volatile flavor compounds in the neutral fraction of roast beef,” Journal of Food Science, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 639–642, 2010.

S. Rebolo, R. M. Peña, S. Garcı́a, A. M. Botana, and C. Herrero, “Characterisation of Galician (NW Spain) Ribeira Sacra wines using pattern recognition analysis,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 417, no. 2, pp. 211–220, 2000.

F. Vararu, J. Moreno-García, C.-I. Zamfir, V. V. Cotea, and J. Moreno, “Selection of aroma compounds for the differentiation of wines obtained by fermenting musts with starter cultures of commercial yeast strains,” Food Chemistry, vol. 197, pp. 373–381, 2016.

J. Xi, P. Zhan, H. Tian et al., “Comparison of different extraction fibers for analysis of characteristic aroma compounds in Xinjiang roasted lamb by SPME-GC-MS and PCA,” Food Science, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 234–241, 2018.

E. Jami, A. Israel, A. Kotser, and I. Mizrahi, “Exploring the bovine rumen bacterial community from birth to adulthood,” The ISME Journal, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 1069–1079, 2013.

M. L. Timón, A. I. Carrapiso, Á. Jurado, and J. van de Lagemaat, “A study of the aroma of fried bacon and fried pork loin,” Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, vol. 84, no. 8, pp. 825–831, 2004.

Y. Yang, R.-W. Yan, X.-Q. Cai, Z.-L. Zheng, and G.-L. Zou, “Chemical composition and antimicrobial activity of the essential oil ofAmomum tsao-ko,” Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, vol. 88, no. 12, pp. 2111–2116, 2008.

V. Iseli, O. Potterat, L. Hagmann et al., “Characterization of the pungent principles and the essential oil of zanthoxylum schinifolium pericarp,” Pharmazie Die, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 396–400, 2007.

X. Pang, J. Cao, D. Wang et al., “Identification of ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe) volatiles and localization of aroma-active constituents by GC-olfactometry,” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 65, no. 20, pp. 4140–4145, 2017.