Discovering a Volatile Organic Compound Fingerprinting of Pouteria

Fruits (3), 131–138 | ISSN 0248-1294 print, 1625-967X online | https://doi.org/10.17660/th2017/72.3.2 | © ISHS 2017 Short communication

Pouteria lucuma fruits Discovering a volatile organic compound fingerprinting of C. Taitia

, I. Colzi, E. Azzarello and S. Mancuso Università degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Scienze delle Produzioni Agroalimentari e dell’Ambiente, Viale delle Idee, 30, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Florence, Italy Summary Significance of this study Introduction – The unfamiliarity of European What is already known on this subject? consumers with fresh tropical fruits has restricted • their introduction on the international markets. Sev- rope, as consumers are becoming more aware of their eral tropical species, such as Pouteria lucuma, have nutritionalDemand for value fresh and tropical role infruits disease is increasing prevention. in Eu- instead a great economic potential for the Europe- an markets, producing edible fruits known for their What are the new findings? nutritional and healing properties. Currently, fruit • Poute- aroma and sensory characteristics are one of the pri- ria lucuma mary factors determining the fresh fruit quality and This paper is aimed to assess the main VOCs of consumers’ choice and purchasing intention. There- P. lucuma. fruit, trying to fill a scientific gap due to fore, in the last years great attention has been shown the lack of information about flavor compounds of towards the characterization of Volatile Organic What is the expected impact on horticulture? Compounds (VOCs) which contribute to characterize • odors and flavors of a wide variety of tropical fruits sumption of unknown tropical fruits in Europe, in and that can attract the interest of consumers. Mate- creasingOur findings their could production contribute in the to countriesincrease the of origin. con- rials and methods – In this work, proton-transfer-re- - action time-of-flight mass spectrometry (PTR-MS- TOF) measurements were carried out to assess for the first time, the VOCs profile of lucuma fruit, which Introduction – Les fruits tropicaux sont peu is much common and widely consumed in Peru and connus des consommateurs européens, ce qui limite Chile. Results and discussion – More than 50 aromat- leur introduction sur les marchés internationaux. ic compounds were determined in ripe fruits and the Plusieurs espèces tropicales, telles que Pouteria lucu- most abundant signals observed were m/z = 27.022, ma, ont pourtant un fort potentiel économique pour 33.033, 45.033 and 47.049, which were tentatively le marché européen, avec des fruits comestibles ré- identified as acetylene, methanol, acetaldehyde and putés pour leurs propriétés nutritionnelles et cura- ethanol, respectively. Interestingly, many of the com- tives. Actuellement, l’arôme des fruits et les caracté- pounds that usually contribute to the flavor of several ristiques sensorielles sont parmi les principaux fac- tropical fruits, such as mono-, hemi- and sesqui-terp- teurs déterminant la qualité des fruits frais, le choix ens, were not present in the aroma profile of the lu- des consommateurs et leur intention d’achat. Ces cuma fruit. Conclusion – The entire dataset obtained dernières années, une attention particulière est por- shows that the lucuma fruit aroma is due in large part tée à la caractérisation des composés organiques vo- to the presence of short-chain alcohols (methanol, latils (COV) qui contribuent à caractériser les odeurs acetaldehyde, ethanol) but also of volatile esters, et les arômes d’une grande variété de fruits tropicaux aldehydes and hydrocarbons that contributes to the et qui peuvent attirer l’intérêt des consommateurs. complex mixture of volatile aroma. Matériel et méthodes – Au cours de ce travail, des me- sures de spectrométrie de masse (MS) à temps de vol Keywords (TOF) et ionisation par transfert de proton (PTR) ont tropical fruits, Pouteria lucuma, aromatic compounds, été effectuées pour évaluer pour la première fois le profil COV des fruits du lucuma, très répandu et lar- gement consommé au Pérou et au Chili. Résultats et proton-transfer-reaction time-of-flight mass spectro- value discussion – Plus de 50 composés aromatiques ont été metry (PTR-MS-TOF), underutilized species, nutritional déterminés à partir des fruits mûrs et les signaux les Résumé plus abondants ont été observés aux rapports masse/ charge (m/z) de 27,022, 33,033, 45,033 et 47,049 provisoirement identifiés comme l’acétylène, le mé- Découverte de l’empreinte biochimique en thanol, l’acétaldéhyde et l’éthanol, respectivement. Il Pouteria lucuma. est intéressant de constater que de nombreux compo- composés organiques volatils des fruits de sés qui contribuent habituellement à la saveur de plusieurs fruits tropicaux, tels les mono-, hémi- et ses- a

Corresponding author: [email protected].

Volume 72 | Issue 3 | May/June 2017 131 Taiti et al Pouteria lucuma fruits

. | Discovering a volatile organic compound fingerprinting of qui-terpènes, n’étaient pas présents dans le profil ceptance based on individual preference (Baietto and Wil aromatique des fruits du lucuma. Conclusion – L’en- Moreover, fruit aroma is the key to determine consumer ac- semble des données obtenues montre que l’arôme des - fruits du lucuma est dû en grande partie à la présence son, 2015). A large number of VOCs has been identified in d’alcools à chaîne courte (méthanol, acétaldéhyde, themany threshold exotic or of temperate perception fruits, and thebut interactionsmore studies with are needother- éthanol) mais aussi d’esters volatils, d’aldéhydes et ed to characterize each fruits, such as: aroma fingerprinting, d’hydrocarbures qui contribuent au mélange com- plexe d’arômes volatils. compounds. Actually, PTRMS TOF represents a simple and fast technology which allows a rapid and real-time detection Mots-clés theof the “from headspace farm to table” composition production of VOCs, chain and to meet could the be satis used Pouteria lucuma for compounds identifications and their monitoring during - fruits exotiques, , composes aromatiques, compoundsfaction of the of consumerfruits, for exampledemands. spices Indeed, (Taiti PTRMS TOF has valeurspectrométrie nutritionnelle de masse à temps de vol et ionisation par et al been extensively used to assess and monitoring the flavor transfert de proton (PTR-MS-TOF), espèce sous-utilisée, apples (Farneti et al et al., ., 2015b), Pouteria lucuma .,Ruiz 2015) & Pav.and istropical a subtropical fruits (Taiti perennial tree2015a). producing an important edible fruit known for its nu Introduction tritional and healing properties. This species belongs to the Sapotaceae - in Europe (Sabbe et al moreDemand aware of for their fresh nutritional tropical value fruits and is steadilyrole in disease increasing pre species belonging family andto the is nativegenus Pouteriato the high, such Andean as “lucuma” valleys ., 2009), as consumers are becoming of Chile, Ecuador and Peru (Gutierrez, 1980). Although some be associated also to other factors, such as: the improvement- populations and were used in the traditional diet and med vention (Song and Forney, 2008). Moreover, this increase can or “sapote”, have been cultivated for centuries by the native crease of international travels and higher incomes, the grow international trade market, thus representing a strong eco- of storage technologies and transportation systems, the inet- icine (Fuentealba, 2016), they are almost unknown on the al - - ing search for new flavors and innovative products (Sabbe nomic potential for native peoples. About 88% lucuma fruit ., 2009). Currently, consumers show more attention to the consumptionworld production and foris concentrated export to other in Peru.countries, In this such country as Chile, lu- fruit quality and some parameters, as flavor and dietary val- cuma is a staple food, generally much common for domestic ue, have become very important. The quality of fresh fruits et al depends indeed on many aspects, among which appearance, US and Canada (AMPEX, 2010) that are wide consumers color, texture, flavor and nutritional benefit (Song and For- (Quilter ., 1991). Both on the national and international ney, 2008). Furthermore, it has been proven that sensoryet trade market, lucuma is usually consumed as fresh fruit and alcharacteristics are one of the primary factors for consumers’ juices or can be used for the preparation of ice-creams and choice and purchasing intention (Verbeke, 2006; Enneking desserts as flour and frozen or dehydrated pulp (Diaz, 1987). ., 2007). Lucumaet al is a climacteric fruit and the ripening process is In 2002 Tuorila and Cardello (2002) in a study per- partassociated and a hard by color inedible changes inner andseed increase (nut), known of soluble for its solids heal formed to analyze consumer responses to an off-flavor in (Lizana ., 1986). It is composed by an outer fleshy edible juice in the presence of specific health claims, highlighted corn and canola oils, it represents a rich natural source of- the importance of sensory liking as the principal predictor ing properties since, as tough other plantset al such as soybean, secondof consumption. time and Inconsuming practice, itif inthe the first future. impression of taste is poor, the consumer is prevented from trying the product a fatty acids (Simopoulos, 2004; Rojo ., 2010). Moreover, andlucuma it is used fruit as is natural a good alternative source of to fiber, sucrose minerals, used as phenolic sweet Therefore, improvements in fruit flavor are needed to compounds, carotene andet other al compounds (Yahia, 2011) satisfy consumer demands (Kader, 2004). The great diversity is available in literature about metabolites present in lucuma- tiesof exotic that fruits,can attract especially the interest tropical of ones, consumers. represents For a this promis rea- fruiteners (Fuentealba (Belščak-Cvitanović et al ., 2015). Only few information ing area for studying aromas with unusual sensory proper- the aromatic properties of fruit. - ., 2016) while no studies are known on son, in the last years great attention has been shown towards the characterization of the volatile profile of a wide variety of The aim of this work was to assess the main VOCs Pouthat- exotic fruits (Lasekan and Abbas, 2012). Fruit aromas consist characterizeteria lucuma .lucuma Therefore, fruit, some helping conventional to fill a scientific measurements gap due (Schwabof a complex et al mixture of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) to(SSC the and lack color) of information were performed about flavor to evaluate compounds the ripening of whose composition is specific to each fruit type and variety ., 2008). All fruits produce and emit a wide va- whichriety of contribute VOCs, such to as characterizeesters, terpenes, and lactonesdifferentiate and derivtheir- stage of the fruit, while non-conventional VOC analysis by atives of amino acids, fatty-acids and phenolic compounds, PTRMS TOF were carried out to assess, for the first time, the fruit, although sharing some aromatic characteristics, has a Materialsvolatile compound and profile methods of lucuma fruit. odors and flavors (Baietto and Wilson, 2015). Each type of Experimental materials distinctive sensory characteristic that depends on the specific combination of all VOCs present in the aroma mixture (Tucker, 1993). Therefore, VOCs can be used for the charac- A collection of 12 homogeneous fresh lucuma fruits (un- terization of agro-industrial products, includinget al fruits, and known variety) were purchased as “ready to eat” by “Shan- for food evaluation to determine their quality and consumer grilamarketplace”, a local importer of exotic fruits in the city acceptance (Baietto and Wilson, 2015; Taiti ., 2015a). of Florence (Tuscany, Italy). Fruit selection was based on the

132 International Journal of Tropical and Subtropical Horticulture Taiti et al Pouteria lucuma fruits

. | Discovering a volatile organic compound fingerprinting of Table 1. Pouteria lucuma extracted fromSoluble each solid fruit. content (SSC) and color at various ripening stages (1–5) of fruit samples. GY: Green- yellow; DY: Dark-yellow; OY: Orange-yellow. SSC values are means of 3 refractometric measurements on the juice freshly Fruit samples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ripening 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 stage SSC (°Brix) 26.3±0.76 25.5±0.53 26.0±0.84 24.5±1.22 23.5±0.80 25.5±1.10 20.5±0.50 26.5±0.76 20.5±0.25 22.0±0.96 20.3±0.45 22.3±1.24 Peel color GY GY GY GY GY GY GY GY GY GY GY GY Pulp color DY OY OY DY DY DY DY OY DY DY DY DY

actions are sensitive to changes of these parameters (Man cuso et al absence of external defects and on size homogeneity. All the - samples have been imported (by air) from a local market ., 2015). Compounds of exactly known m/z, such as in Peru (Lima) and were maintained at room temperature trichlorobenzene (m/z =180.937), were continuously added were(23 ± conducted 3 °C; 45–55% in triplicate. relative humidity) for two days before to the sample inlet system and together with other known the analysis. For each fruit sample all the measurements masslow mass and ions the werechemical used formula for a precise of all conversion ions detected of “time-of- during Color evaluation and soluble solid content (SSC) flight” into “mass-to-charge” ratio+ (m/z). To assign theH exact+) + The ripening stage of the fruit samples was assessed H Cl ) were used for internal calibra2 5 2 VOC analysis, m/z = 29.997 (NO ), m/z = 59.049 (C O 6 4 3 lackand m/zof information = 180.937 (Con aromatic compounds of lucuma fruit,- following the classification developed according to peel and tion. This operation was performed off-line. Considering the pulp color ripening scale by Lizana (1980). The peel can range from green to yellowish-green color while the pulp tropicalthe tentative fruit species.identification of VOCs provided by the tool was from light yellow to orange-yellow (Lizana, 1980). compared, when possible, with published VOCs emitted from Solid soluble content (SSC, %) was measured with an N1 Results and discussion Atagoet al. refractometer (Atago Co., Japan) and values were expressed as °Brix, following the procedure reported by Lizana Color and SSC parameters (1986). Briefly, pulp from ripe fruit has been disrupted by mechanical means and diluted with distilled water (1:5). PTRMS-TOFFinally the homogenate analysis of was lucuma analyzed fresh by fruit refractometer. All the fruit samples showed a ripening stage of 4 or 5 following the classification suggested by Lizana (1980) com- prising five stages of maturity. The soluble solid values var- The proton-transfer-reaction time-of-flight mass spec- ied from 20.3 to 27.0 °Brix, revealing a high sugar content freshtrometry or processed (PTR-MS-TOF) fruits has (Taiti been et definedal as a valuableet alin.,- in the pulp of the tested fruits (Table 1). Since lucuma is a strument for etVOCs al fingerprinting and quality evaluation of climacteric and highly perishable fruit, the ripening process ., 2015a; Farneti is accompanied by increasing sugar contents and changes 2015; Mayr ., 2002). Measurements were performed in skin and pulp color (Yahia, 2004). The parameterset al com- (Vwith mode) a commercial and using PTR H +TOF 8000 model, from Ionicon Ana- monly used to assess a ripening stage are: change of peel lytik GmbH (Innsbruck, Austria) in its standard configuration and pulp color and solid soluble content (Lizana ., 1986). fer reaction. The ionization3 conditions for all measurements O as reagent ion for the proton-trans- Moreover, immature fruits often lack flavor because of the close relationship between maturity and volatile biosynthe- in the drift tube were the following: 110 °C drift tube tem- sis (Kader, 2004); it is therefore really important to define perature, 2.30 mbar drift pressure and 550 V drift voltage the ripening stage in order to properly evaluate the lucuma and E/N value of 135 Td. Data acquisition was carried out fruit aroma. Following the classification suggested by Lizana at 1 spectrum per second. All mass spectra (m/z) have been (1980) the lucuma fruit samples used in this paper showed a sampled ranging between 25 and 210, and subsequently the Rapid4 or 5 stagedetection of ripening. of volatile compounds using PTRMS- signal at m/z = 37 has been deleted sinceet al. it is related to wa- TOF ter cluster and not portion to VOCs. of Forfruit the was sample cut from preparation, each sample, the procedure previously3 used by Taiti (2015a) has been withfollowed. a special A 5-cm glass cap which allows the connection between The volatile profile of lucuma fruits was analyzed via weighed and put immediately in a 50-mL glass jar, topped PTRMS-TOF. Peak extraction showed the detection of 50 tentatively identified compounds in the range of measured the inlet of the PTRMS-TOF, the headspace collecting and the masses (25 < m/z < 210), derived from the protonation of werezero-air-generating. collected on three different portions and, in the end, the various VOCs (Table 2). About 75% of the identified com- averageFor eachvalue ofand the standard 12 lucuma deviation fruits, of VOCthe three measurements replicates pounds were detected within the range 25–100 while only were calculated. Before the measurement, each fruit sam the 25% were placed between 100 and 210. Moreover, the intensity of signal found in the range 25–100 describes more - than 99% of total intensity recorded. Figure 1 shows the ple was incubated at room temperature for five minutes. To snapshot of the mass spectra obtained in the range 25–210 avoid possible systematic errors, the apparatus was flushed for one lucuma fruit sample. All compounds identified for keptwith constantclean air duringfor 5 min the frommeasurements, one measurement since chemical of lucuma re ulareach formula,analyzed chemical fruit and andtheir functional signal intensity grouping are listedand related in Ta- sample to the next one. Humidity and temperature were ble 2, together with their m/z ratio, chemical name, molec- -

Volume 72 | Issue 3 | May/June 2017 133 Taiti et al Pouteria lucuma fruits

. | Discovering a volatile organic compound fingerprinting of , , , ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ , ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ g ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ et al ., 2007^ et al ., 2007^ Abundant Abundant et al ., 2015 et al ., 2015 et al ., 2015 et al ., 2015 et al ., 2015 et al ., 2015 f Taiti et al ., 2016 Taiti et al ., 2016 Taiti et al ., 2016 Taiti et al ., 2016 Taiti et al ., 2016 Taiti et al ., 2016 Taiti et al ., 2016 Taiti et al ., 2016 Taiti et al ., 2016 Taiti References Taiti et al. , 2015b Taiti Taiti et al ., 2015a Taiti Taiti et al ., 2015c Taiti Mancuso Mancuso Mancuso Mancuso Mancuso Mancuso Laohakunjit Laohakunjit Alves and Franco, 2003^ Alves and Franco, 2003^ on the 3.68 4.12 0.25 9.33 9.64 0.04 3.17 0.03 7.99 0.22 0.14 1.33 0.01 8.47 0.39 0.63 0.88 0.35 0.04 0.26 f total 10.45 17.72 17.79 (%) Compound Compound’s Chemical formula formula Chemical Compound’s c for each fruit sample; for

12 5.05 11.09 11.09 49.16 16.95 89.65 45.32 19.23 ±8.65 ±2.40 ±2.22 ±1.55 ±2.53 964.00 4757.3 830.00 4351.8 120.50 486.50 141.15 275.90 319.65 150.35 ±345.5 ±18.15 ±25.35 ±10.32 ±25.90 ±26.40 ±55.50 ±67.66 ±20.55 1213.25 2673.75 3190.35 1680.24 2527.44 7392.80 ±110.40 ±221.35 ±276.50 ±680.90 ±204.00 ±378.90 ±220.80 ±445.33 ±1220.45 11 8.77 5.33 19.11 19.11 98.06 16.96 93.83 56.12 ±1.11 ±3.40 ±2.60 ±8.63 ±2.52 923.25 990.00 610.00 3461.8 120.50 499.50 144.35 203.20 323.30 208.95 ±12.22 ±81.00 ±16.70 ±13.40 ±33.50 ±39.50 ±42.35 ±57.80 ±32.40 2802.66 3330.05 4041.45 2720.55 3817.34 7569.80 ±110.00 ±280.55 ±225.66 ±455.43 ±477.50 ±350.56 ±406.67 ±290.43 ±2090.45 10 9.56 6.65 Putative identifications; Putative 17.07 40.66 83.99 57.23 21.66 ±5.20 ±3.67 ±8.45 ±2.45 ±1.55 737.50 912.35 7171.8 108.10 561.30 7623.8 129.75 172.54 402.55 121.45 ±11.60 ±45.50 ±25.60 ±15.13 ±40.90 ±33.50 ±33.37 ±95.39 ±27.80 1160.66 1160.66 b 1057.25 4540.35 5030.10 4096.25 2747.55 ±101.35 ±321.34 ±210.34 ±200.34 ±690.60 ±766.54 ±146.44 ±578.54 ±878.54 ; m/z 9 e 6.27 11.23 11.23 16.84 46.36 89.22 68.99 21.95 ±4.60 ±6.65 ±2.50 ±5.33 ±1.47 ±5.60 VOCs headspace intensity VOCs (ncps) 3457.4 834.25 7981.8 109.75 579.50 138.55 282.65 425.12 128.92 ±11.12 ±23.35 ±45.60 ±80.55 ±31.64 4804.16 3830.05 1067.50 1061.85 1630.64 2387.55 7978.48 ±117.80 ±112.30 ±418.56 ±406.45 ±135.70 ±502.50 ±123.40 ±860.56 ±165.55 ±340.44 ±101.35 e ±1667.47 8 5.09 15.65 39.56 17.20 92.72 49.33 16.72 ±3.90 ±5.65 ±5.44 ±2.05 ±1.73 810.20 107.70 475.60 7220.8 127.35 275.01 291.40 135.75 ±55.80 ±17.66 ±18.75 ±10.34 ±45.50 ±44.60 ±55.63 ±32.35 ±35.33 3424.34 2586.15 3850.44 1035.40 12561.8 1017.25 2520.24 4107.55 ±110.35 ±409.50 ±400.57 ±221.34 ±120.20 ±336.30 ±454.24 ±976.44 ±2660.33 7 Protonated measured measured Protonated 5.02 a PTR-TOF-MS articles where molecule was reported. molecule was articles where PTR-TOF-MS 11.46 11.46 15.34 97.05 40.41 15.52 ±3.35 ±3.79 ±8.56 ±1.40 ±2.50 130.06 913.25 960.15 103.35 489.90 7340.8 327.75 380.20 285.05 129.35 ±21.35 ±87.65 ±85.45 ±26.40 ±18.15 ±80.50 ±77.80 ±61.56 ±32.35 ᴥ 2986.34 2681.15 3370.05 1210.35 8931.82 3310.24 3157.55 ±280.80 ±256.65 ±309.50 ±130.43 ±516.32 ±454.58 ±104.50 ±1676.40 ±1545.50 6 6.67 4.96 110.5 110.5 15.73 99.06 53.78 39.41 13.96 ±2.50 ±2.45 ±8.65 ±5.43 ±0.67 ±1.55 106.55 512.60 6445.8 243.31 273.65 180.26 ±15.26 ±32.35 ±30.80 ±35.90 ±45.77 ±51.35 ±41.55 2889.45 3718.10 4290.05 3951.22 2073.26 1200.13 2990.20 3967.50 ±338.70 ±298.23 ±134.55 ±320.75 ±550.35 ±340.56 ±260.90 ±455.60 ±187.76 1787.500 ±1023.43 5 8.40 5.28 47.11 47.11 15.51 92.76 51.59 78.24 13.33 ±3.20 ±2.44 ±1.09 ±1.35 3096.4 106.05 520.40 6558.8 125.50 248.25 264.75 ±25.55 ±28.65 ±15.65 ±10.22 ±60.40 ±30.70 ±19.20 ±51.77 ±10.68 3779.10 3040.10 1987.50 4351.80 1221.25 1420.30 3920.24 4617.55 ±460.70 ±545.45 ±130.30 ±320.90 ±640.30 ±210.30 ±195.20 ±365.67 ±222.45 ±767.54 ± standard deviations. deviations. standard ± Fruit samples: VOCs headspace intensity (ncps) 4 5.82 15.73 16.23 82.15 54.66 18.10 ±2.11 ±5.80 ±6.13 ±7.98 ±1.10 114.24 114.24 141.16 875.25 899.15 579.90 7224.8 106.35 152.61 501.25 155.25 ±45.26 ±77.50 ±22.20 ±39.70 ±14.67 ±90.70 ±20.80 ±22.66 ±46.78 7035.20 4933.15 5190.40 3747.20 8361.55 6120.22 2927.55 ±101.11 ±334.34 ±432.32 ±670.90 ±322.54 ±887.45 ±1255.60 ±1677.32 ±1550.90 3 5.93 16.48 48.96 10.56 84.29 76.98 78.55 18.22 ±4.05 ±8.70 ±2.22 ±2.33 ±3.35 114.85 114.85 411.40 411.40 117.65 8876.4 587.80 7367.8 257.60 ±12.11 ±23.55 ±10.63 ±10.40 ±30.80 ±60.50 ±28.20 5119.15 5119.15 ±111.25 4280.05 2067.55 9291.60 1918.25 1045.10 3260.23 3397.55 ±432.45 ±209.40 ±209.30 ±343.30 ±323.44 ±340.52 ±409.45 ±1190.56 ±2055.70 ±1545.34 2 5.63 16.12 15.23 75.51 59.07 16.83 ±1.22 ±3.40 ±8.80 ±1.23 ±4.45 110.35 110.35 3545.4 105.36 562.70 335.12 237.01 375.35 105.45 ±16.50 ±20.45 ±10.22 ±55.90 ±40.35 ±55.60 ±55.75 ±18.40 4449.10 3540.00 2377.50 8058.85 3366.25 3818.20 4090.24 3717.40 ±711.30 ±450.75 ±440.20 ±709.50 ±402.45 ±450.55 ±960.75 ±397.69 6688. 46 ±1720.50 ±1090.34 1 5.36 11.47 11.47 15.50 66.36 73.94 67.13 15.55 ±3.20 ±3.20 ±2.20 ±3.40 105.85 560.80 332.14 369.45 202.55 ±11.12 ±10.50 ±30.30 ±17.40 ±44.30 ±39.40 ±40.60 ±33.40 3021.15 3690.55 2967.50 2346.50 7202.40 2359.24 1748.44 5220.22 3586.67 6597.50 ±333.65 ±333.87 ±300.34 ±444.50 ±400.60 ±320.35 ±900.60 ±546.24 ±989.45 125.10 ± ±1560.55 d T1 T2 H1 N1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 O7 O8 O9 O11 O10 and Chemical functional grouping c + + + + + + + + + + + + 2 2 + 2 + + + + + + + + + + 3 3 5 7 5 7 9 5 7 9 O O O O O O O N O O O O 3 5 7 O 5 7 5 7 5 3 5 5 5 7 H H H H H H H H H H 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 H H H H H H H H H 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 2 3 C C C C C C C C C C CH CH CH C C C CH C C C C C C formula chemical Protonated b Compound classification based on their chemical T and terpene, O biochemical others; H properties: hydrocarbon, d Tropical fruits articles where molecule was reported; reported; molecule was fruits articles where ^ Tropical their bibliography: to Compounds related g Alkyl (Propene) fragment Alkyl fragment (Hexanol/Hexyl acetate) Cyclobutadiene Methanol Acetylene Formaldehyde Methylamide fragment Isoprene Alkyl fragment Alkyl fragment Acetaldheyde Ethanol Methanol hydrate fragment C4 aldehydes 2-propenal/2E-Hexenal fragment Propanal Acetates Alkyl fragment Alkyl fragment Furan Isoprene/1,3-Pentadiene 2-butenal/2,3-Dihydrofuran Alkyl fragment Tentative identification Tentative Compounds identified through PTR-Analysis. Values are means of three replicates of each fruit each of replicates three of means are Values PTR-Analysis. through identified Compounds 2. a added protonation); by + 43.054 57.070 53.039 33.033 Protonated measured m/z 27.022 31.018 31.042 39.022 41.038 43.018 45.033 47.049 51.042 55.054 57.033 59.049 61.028 65.038 67.054 69.036 69.069 71.049 73.028 signals expressed as (%); signals expressed Table (H

134 International Journal of Tropical and Subtropical Horticulture Taiti et al Pouteria lucuma fruits

. | Discovering a volatile organic compound fingerprinting of , , ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ , , , , , , , , , , ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ ᴥ et al ., 2007^ et al ., 2007^ et al ., 2015 et al ., 2015 et al ., 2015 2010 2010 2003^ Alves and Franco, , ᴥ Taiti et al ., 2016 Taiti et al ., 2016 Taiti et al ., 2016 Taiti et al ., 2016 Taiti Pino et al ., 2005^ Pino et al ., 2005^ Pino et al ., 2005^ Pino et al., 2005^ Pino et al ., 2005^ Pino et al ., 2005^ Taiti et al ., 2015c Taiti et al ., 2015c Taiti Taiti et al ., 2015b Taiti et al ., 2015b Taiti Taiti et al ., 2015c Taiti et al ., 2015c Taiti et al ., 2015c Taiti et al ., 2015c Taiti et al ., 2015c Taiti Taiti et al ., 2015b Taiti et al ., 2015b Taiti et al ., 2015b Taiti Taiti et al ., 2015a Taiti et al ., 2015a Taiti Junker and Blüthgen, Junker and Blüthgen, Junker and Blüthgen, Mancuso Mancuso Mancuso Laohakunjit Laohakunjit Alves and Franco, 2003^ Alves and Franco, 2003^ Alves and Franco, 2003^ Alves and Franco, 2003^ Alves and Franco, 2003^ Alves and Franco, 2003^ Alves and Franco, 2003^ 2010 Baietto and Wilson, 2015^ 0.46 0.25 0.03 0.24 0.01 0.71 1.30 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.00 1.25 4.92 8.78 6.61 3.16 1.68 2.65 2.16 1.54 2.71 1.35 5.55 3.25 4.23 3.10 96.44 10.42 87.61 16.86 27.16 40.53 15.79 15.41 22.14 34.67 ±0.11 ±3.32 ±8.05 ±1.60 ±4.74 ±0.80 ±3.32 ±2.30 ±0.53 ±0.50 ±0.50 ±0.40 ±0.14 ±7.66 ±2.90 ±0.50 ±0.05 ±5.77 ±1.25 ±0.80 ±7.25 ±7.20 ±1.25 ±0.78 555.11 555.11 100.95 133.12 ±40.20 ±21.52 ±27.22 ±90.85 0 0 2.30 4.75 15.8 8.18 6.59 3.01 2.14 2.61 2.63 1.33 4.45 3.14 4.09 3.88 26.03 86.49 25.87 39.48 14.41 16.21 22.12 33.87 ±1.11 ±0.25 ±8.44 ±0.87 ±3.25 ±2.90 ±6.67 ±1.87 ±0.47 ±0.30 ±0.45 ±3.20 ±0.65 ±0.25 ±6.44 ±0.95 ±4.77 ±0.80 ±1.49 110.45 110.45 150.65 436.62 417.15 ±11.45 ±32.35 ±47.50 ±92.35 ±65.70 ±10.55 ±16.20 0 0 0 3.15 5.82 8.26 9.16 2.17 2.25 2.19 7.73 1.33 1.50 3.40 9.29 3.48 2.45 2.12 78.05 16.07 21.35 30.17 19.31 13.53 ±1.11 ±1.11 ±1.05 ±2.26 ±2.76 ±6.30 ±2.26 ±0.35 ±0.45 ±0.15 ±1.26 ±0.20 ±0.10 ±2.50 ±3.26 ±2.45 ±1.44 ±0.75 ±0.26 311.52 311.52 260.75 121.35 294.15 ±11.26 ±18.55 ±57.20 ±22.35 ±62.55 ±70.40 0 0 18.1 3.38 8.44 9.58 2.31 2.33 2.25 8.02 1.33 1.22 1.21 5.68 9.76 3.69 2.39 4.09 16.63 16.63 32.03 20.37 14.51 ±1.11 ±0.11 ±2.50 ±4.46 ±0.95 ±4.43 ±3.44 ±0.55 ±0.45 ±0.40 ±1.95 ±7.50 ±0.20 ±0.15 ±5.63 ±1.50 ±3.40 ±2.30 ±0.68 ±1.03 ±1.55 144.65 125.05 326.32 361.65 484.15 ±37.26 ±35.60 ±55.66 ±110.45 ±160.30 1.11 1.11 2.11 2.11 1.50 4.55 7.27 5.92 2.94 1.93 2.38 2.40 1.24 1.49 4.18 3.09 3.75 95.05 79.55 15.27 12.84 30.87 15.04 38.53 14.61 22.33 31.81 ±0.10 ±5.26 ±1.44 ±4.57 ±2.23 ±9.50 ±1.15 ±1.10 ±0.55 ±1.10 ±4.90 ±0.55 ±0.10 ±0.20 ±0.30 ±4.44 ±1.05 ±6.77 ±5.65 ±1.55 ±0.50 ±1.05 122.62 157.95 597.15 ±16.32 ±19.66 ±17.80 ±33.20 ±73.20 ±10.35 0 0 14.8 6.57 5.95 2.63 1.99 2.23 2.27 2.00 1.37 3.93 2.88 1.87 3.35 11.85 11.85 69.58 76.77 73.55 10.34 24.62 13.43 35.66 15.01 21.94 28.66 ±0.11 ±2.26 ±2.50 ±3.40 ±2.33 ±2.10 ±0.40 ±0.60 ±0.80 ±2.50 ±6.32 ±0.40 ±0.25 ±0.25 ±3.20 ±1.25 ±5.95 ±6.95 ±0.84 ±1.05 120.42 731.15 ±11.65 ±13.20 ±12.76 ±10.95 ±10.44 ±101.35 0 0 0 2.28 8.72 5.09 6.93 1.59 1.84 1.71 4.63 1.10 1.12 2.61 9.09 5.48 3.27 3.31 1.56 85.59 20.34 13.56 17.97 15.47 ±0.11 ±6.45 ±5.56 ±0.40 ±3.50 ±1.05 ±5.60 ±1.91 ±0.50 ±0.44 ±0.65 ±1.49 ±6.44 ±0.20 ±3.40 ±0.70 ±0.95 ±1.05 ±0.80 ±0.47 ±0.20 115.85 115.85 103.65 208.82 369.15 ±33.36 ±27.60 ±26.95 ±77.66 0 0 2.05 8.20 4.66 6.87 1.51 1.75 1.59 4.09 2.34 1.10 1.32 4.51 8.76 5.02 3.40 4.99 1.51 98.41 81.47 12.74 10.46 16.89 15.33 ±3.47 ±0.45 ±2.22 ±1.56 ±4.66 ±0.95 ±0.44 ±0.30 ±0.30 ±0.40 ±3.95 ±0.80 ±0.05 ±0.20 ±6.67 ±2.25 ±2.90 ±0.47 ±1.44 ±0.93 ±0.15 202.32 104.95 464.15 ±17.80 ±22.27 ±32.67 ±37.50 ±167.52 0 0 0 0 8.49 6.58 6.47 8.22 1.73 2.03 3.81 5.62 1.26 5.59 8.98 8.68 3.93 3.98 1.99 11.53 11.53 22.35 25.28 17.66 ±1.11 ±2.65 ±0.60 ±3.20 ±0.80 ±3.45 ±0.65 ±0.43 ±0.55 ±1.10 ±1.95 ±7.26 ±0.35 ±2.56 ±1.20 ±2.67 ±1.83 ±1.05 ±0.80 115.25 115.25 145.50 329.02 340.25 891.15 ±57.26 ±35.33 ±61.45 ±70.33 ±177.32 0 0 2.59 6.40 8.41 1.77 2.20 1.71 5.40 1.33 1.22 1.45 3.17 8.79 9.08 4.05 3.22 2.05 11.27 11.27 45.85 14.31 12.31 25.25 18.02 ±4.11 ±5.57 ±0.44 ±2.80 ±0.60 ±3.35 ±0.55 ±0.65 ±0.40 ±0.30 ±1.44 ±6.73 ±0.30 ±0.10 ±0.15 ±0.35 ±0.89 ±0.87 ±0.60 ±1.20 ±0.25 115.15 115.15 638.62 212.15 336.12 ±10.33 ±20.87 ±44.83 ±45.70 ±54.92 5.11 5.11 7.02 2.28 9.75 5.60 7.96 1.70 1.50 1.60 1.13 1.20 1.09 1.33 1.35 4.00 8.40 7.87 4.33 4.20 1.88 10.49 21.50 16.86 ±1.20 ±0.30 ±2.50 ±2.40 ±3.45 ±2.25 ±0.45 ±0.30 ±0.25 ±0.05 ±2.10 ±4.70 ±0.25 ±0.20 ±0.20 ±0.54 ±3.45 ±1.10 ±1.40 ±1.15 ±0.55 ±0.40 ±0.35 125.05 103.25 313.92 193.95 401.10 ±30.60 ±25.60 ±75.50 ±33.50 ±55.60 0 0 2.33 8.88 5.16 7.78 1.59 2.80 2.38 4.36 2.16 2.12 1.55 2.82 8.56 7.41 4.41 3.98 1.72 95.65 13.16 20.14 19.76 17.16 ±3.90 ±0.55 ±2.25 ±1.20 ±4.30 ±2.90 ±0.40 ±0.50 ±0.30 ±1.10 ±5.60 ±0.30 ±0.12 ±0.34 ±2.10 ±0.50 ±2.50 ±2.25 ±1.45 ±1.10 ±0.55 117.60 117.60 307.82 168.85 578.15 ±20.50 ±10.50 ±60.70 ±30.35 ±140.55 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 H11 H10 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 O12 O13 O14 O15 O16 O17 O18 O19 O20 O21 O22 O23 O24 O25 O26 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2 2 3 + + 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 + + + + + + O O O O O 9 9 9 15 17 O O O O O O O O 11 11 O O O O O O O 9 7 9 7 9 17 11 11 11 7 9 7 9 9 13 7 11 11 15 H H H H H 11 H H 6 6 7 H H H H H H 6 7 H H H H H H H H H H 10 10 H H 4 5 5 7 8 H H 5 6 7 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 5 7 7 10 C C C CHN 4 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

Methyl ethyl ketone ethyl Methyl 2,3-Butandione 1-Methoxy-2-propanol Isobutanal/Butanone/ Propanoates/ Methyl acetate Alkyl fragment Benzene Alkyl (Hexenal/Hexenol/ fragment fragments) Terpene 2-Methylfuran compounds/C6 fragment Hexenal Methyl-butenal γ-Butyrolactone/ 2,3-Methylbutanal/ 2-Pentanone acetate/ButanoicEthyl acid 2-3-Butanediol/ Alkyl fragment fragments) (Terpene Alkyl fragment fragments) (Terpene Hexenal/ 2,3-Pentanedione Hexanal/2-Hexenol/ 3-Hexen-1-ol 2-Methylbutanoic acid/ butanoate/Valeric acid Methyl Benzaldehyde 2,5-Dimethylpyrazine 2-Propylfuran Phenylacetaldehyde/ Acetophenone Methyl-2-Furoate/ 3-hydroxy-2-pyranone ester/ C7 p-Cymene Monoterpenes 2,5-Dimethyl-4-methoxy-3- furanone compound Terpenoid-like Methyl-pentenone Isopentyl acetate 73.064 75.044 77.038 79.054 81.069 83.049 83.085 85.065 87.044 87.080 89.059 91.070 93.069 95.085 99.080 101.059 101.096 103.075 107.049 109.076 111.082 121.065 127.040 131.110 135.117 137.137 143.107 153.126

Volume 72 | Issue 3 | May/June 2017 135 Taiti et al Pouteria lucuma fruits

. | Discovering a volatile organic compound fingerprinting of

Figure 1.

Example of a typical PTR-TOFMS mass spectrum obtained by volatile analysis of one lucuma fruit. FIGURE 1.

higher massExample resolution of a typical (Taiti PTR-TOFMSet al mass spectrum obtained by volatile analysis of one lucuma fruit. literature. The most recent version of PTRMS-TOF allows a were generated through this pathway. mass formulas reported and after .,compared 2015a) whereby, with previous for all avocado,Comparing banana theand mangosteen lucuma fruit (Taiti spectrum et al obtained byet signals identified, all the m/z were tentatively assigned to the alPTRMS TOF toolet with al other tropical fruits, such as mango, other PTR studies. ., 2015a; Mayr knowledge of the VOCs emitted by other fruits or detected in ., 2002; White ., 2016), it was possible to observe the two following points: 1) the significantly reduced or almost The most abundant signals (>1% of the total) found in absent signals of some compounds commonly identified in lucuma fruits were: 27.022 (Tentative identification: Acety- several fruits, among which monoterpenes (m/z = 137), ter- lene), 31.018 (TI: Formaldehyde), 33.033 (Methanol), 39.022 penoids (153) and sesquiterpenes (205); 2) the low signal (TI: Isoprene fragments), 41.038 (TI: Alkyl fragment), 43.018 intensity over 100 and the high signal intensity <100 as for (TI: Alkyl fragment), 45.033 (TI: Acetaldehyde), 47.049 acetylene (m/z = 27), formaldehyde (31), methanol (33), (TI: Ethanol), 59.049 (TI: Propanal), 61.028 (TI: Acetates), Missingacetaldehyde volatile (45) compounds and ethanol (47). 71.049 (TI: 2-Butanal) and 89.059 (TI: Ethyl acetate). Oth- er identified compounds, instead, showed a signal intensity between 0.1 and 0.9% of the total, such as: 31.042 (TI: Me- Interestingly, lucuma fruit did not show emissioni.e., mango, of thylamide), 43.052 (TI: Alkyl fragment), 53.026 (Cyclobu- hemiterpenes (C5), monoterpenes (C10) and sesquiterpenes 4 tadiene), 55.054 (TI: C aldehydes fragment), 57.033 (TI: (C15) whereas it is known that in many fruits ( 2-Propenal), 57.070 (TI: Alkyl fragment), 69.033 (TI: Furan), strawberry, citrus, etc.) these compounds are the most rep- 69.069 (TI: Isoprene), 73.064 (TI: Butanone), 75.044 (TI: Hadiresentative et al type of volatiles in the aroma profile and are also Methylacetate), 87.044 (TI: γ-Butyrolactone) and 87.080 (TI: the key compounds determining the characteristic aroma (El 2-Pentanone). ., 2013). In fact, fruits are generally rich in terpenes By our experience lucuma fruit does not have easily iden- that determine their specific bouquet and can attract or repel tifiable flavor impact compounds, but all the compounds list- the favorable or antagonist animals respectively (Junker and ed above may play an important role on the overallet al aroma etBlüthgen, al 2010). For example, in mango fruits terpenes are of this fruit. VOCs are generally biosynthesized from amino areconsidered due to otherto be compounds,important contributors even those tonot the present flavor in(Taiti lu acids, membrane lipids and carbohydrates (Sanz ., 1996) ., 2015a). On the contrary, in other fruits the flavor notes Hadiand theet al availability of primary precursor substrates regu- enal, hexanal in banana (El Hadi et al - precursorslates the amount of aroma and volatiles composition in most of of VOCs the productionfruits (Sanz (Elet cuma, such as: isoamyl acetate, isobutyl acetate,9 (E)-2-hex- al ., 2013). Fatty acids and amino acids are the most pineapple (Zhang et al ., 2013); octenoic acid, methyl ester, hexanoic acid, octanoic acid and ethyl ester in important., 1996). aroma Moreover, compounds the fatty that acid-derived are responsible straight for chainfresh kiwifruit (Carcia et al., 2009); methyl and ethyl butanoate, alcohols, aldehydes, ketones,et al acids, esters and lactones are (E)-2-hexenal, hexanal, 3-hexenol,et andal methyl benzoate in et al and hexanal together with., 2013); monoterpenes ethanol, compounds (Z)-3-hexanol in gua and fruit flavors (El Hadi ., 2013). Considering the high pres- va(E)-2-hexenal fruit (Egea etin alavocado (El Hadi ., 2013); (Z)-3-hexenal ence of fatty acids in lucuma (Rojo ., 2010), it could be - assumed that many of the identified compounds (Table 2) ., 2014).

136 International Journal of Tropical and Subtropical Horticulture Taiti et al Pouteria lucuma fruits

. | Discovering a volatile organic compound fingerprinting of Low signal intensity compounds References

Byr- molecularThe low weight, intensity such of peaksas the detected above mentioned at m/z > 100 monoter can be Alves,sonima G.L., crassifolia and Franco, M.R.B. (2003). Headspace985 gas chromatog- explained by the limited presence of molecules with high raphy – mass spectrometry of volatile compounds in murici ( - L. Rich). J. Chromatogr. , 297–301. https://doi. eralpenes fruits (m/z (Taiti = 137), et al terpenoids (153),et sesquiterpenes al (205), org/10.1016/S0021-9673(02)01398-5. isopentyl acetate (131) etc., which are generally high in sev- AMPEX (Asociación Macroregional de Productores para la Exporta- ., 2015a; El Hadi ., 2013; Junker and ción, Peru) (2010). Boletín 2010-IV. Blüthgen,ant molecules 2010). for On the the aroma other determination hand, some esters of lucuma and alcohol fruit. 15 detected at m/z < 100 (Table 1) probably represent import- Baietto, M., and Wilson, A.D. (2015). Electronic-nose applications for fruit identification, ripeness and quality grading. Sensors , 899– 931. https://doi.org/10.3390/s150100899. dríguezThese molecules et al can be the key contributors to the fruity aroma, as already observed in some apple or fig fruits (Ro- Belščak-Cvitanović, A., Komes, D., Dujmović, M., Karlović, S., Biškić, ., 2013). Volatile esters, mainly acetate derived naturalM., Brnčić, sweeteners M., and Ježek,as sucrose D. (2015). alternatives. Physical, Food bioactive Chem. 167and senso- compounds as methyl acetate (m/z = 75.044), ethyl acetate ry quality parameters of reduced sugar chocolates formulated with (89.059) and 2-pentanone (87.080), represent more than , 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.06.064. 2% of the total VOCs amount detected, while the short-chain as odour and aroma predictors in dessert banana (Musa spp.). Post alcohols, as methanol and ethanol, represent 10 and 16%, harvestBugaud, Biol.C., and and Alter, Technol. P. (2016). 112 Volatile and non-volatile compounds respectively (Table 2). Methylet al acetate, ethyl acetate and - 2-pentanone give respectively the fermented, fruity and ethe- , 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. real flavor notes (Rodríguez ., 2013); meanwhile the high postharvbio.2015.10.003. intensity of signals recorded at m/z = 33.033 (methanol), can be related to the ripening process (Taiti et al Carcia, C.V., Stevenson,Actinidia R.J., Atkinson, R.G., Winz, R.A., and Yong Quik, 45.033 (acetaldehyde), 47.049 (ethanol), at least partially, S. (2013). Changes in the bound137 aroma profiles of ‘Hayward’ and and ethanol are produced as a result of aerobic respiration;., 2015a). ‘Hort16A’ kiwifruit ( spp.) during ripening and GC-olfactom- During the normal ripening process acetaldehyde, methanol etry analysis. Food Chem. , 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodchem.2012.10.002. (Lucuma obovata) en la caracteristicas sensoriales de productos ob the final result of the respiratory metabolism is etthe al produc- Diaz, R. (1987). Evaluacion del efecto de tres selecciones de lucuma tionThe obtainedof pyruvate values which are is in firstly line with decarboxylated the ripening to level acetalde of the- - hyde and finally converted into ethanol (El Hadi ., 2013). tenido en cuatro procesos industriales. Thesis, Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Quillota, Chile, 98 pp. fruit evaluated by colorimetric observation. In addition, this Biol.Diaz-Perez, and Technol.J.C., Bautista, 18 S., and Villanueva, R. (2000). Quality chang- is also confirmed by the low values (Table 2) obtained for es in sapote mamey fruit during ripening and storage. Postharvest some alcohols as hexanal (m/z = 101.096), hexenal (99.080) , 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925- and benzaldehyde (107.049).i.e. Alcohols detected at m/z = 101 5214(99)00062-9. and 99 are important contributors to the green-leafy top- note in fresh fruit flavors; , trans-2-Hexenol has a more Egea, M.B., Pereira-Netto, A.B., Cacho, J., Ferreira,Psidium V., cattleianum and Lopez, Sa R. (2014). Comparative analysis of aroma compounds and sensorial desirable sweet, fruity flavor (Bugaud and Alter, 2016), while bine). Food Chem. 164 features of strawberry and lemon guavas ( - benzaldehyde is known for its characteristic almond flavor , 272–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.food- note (Yahia, 2004). Despite the various ripening stages (4 or chem.2014.05.028. samples.5, see Table 1) of the fruits, the VOC composition and quan- 18 tification did not show any difference between the analyzed El Hadi, M.A.M., Zhang, F.J., Wu, F.F., Zhou, C.H., and Tao, J. (2013). Advances in fruit aroma volatile research. Molecules , 8200–8229. Conclusion https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules18078200. Fruit aroma is known as an important indicator that re ant intrinsic and extrinsic product attributes affect purchase deci Enneking, U., Neumann, C.,18 and Henneberg, S. (2007). How import- - - flects the quality of fruit flavor and determines its acceptance sion. Food Qual. Prefer. , 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodqual.2005.09.008. conducted.by the consumer. In this Before research this westudy, used no the in-depth great researchpotential onof the role of VOCs on the perception of lucuma flavor had been Farneti, B., Khomenko, I., Cappellin, L., Ting, V., Costa, G., Biasioli, F., 63and Costa, F. (2015). Dynamic volatile organic compound finger- PTRMS TOF for the rapid and non-destructive monitoring printing of apple fruit during processing. LWT-Food Sci. and Technol. fruitsof volatile of lucuma. compounds The entire emitted dataset by fresh obtained lucuma seems fruits. to showMore , 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.03.031. thatthan the 50 aromaaromatic of lucuma compounds fruit is were due infound large in part “ready to the to pres eat” Fuentealba, C., Gálvez, L., Cobos, A., Olaeta, J.A., Defilippi, B.G., Chiri- nos, R., Campos, D., and Pedreschi, R. (2016). Characterization of - main primaryPouteria and lucuma secondary. Food metabolites Chem. 190 and in vitro antioxidant thatence compose of short-chain the complex alcohols mixture (methanol, of volatile acetaldehyde, aroma. etha- and antihyperglycemic properties in the mesocarp of three bio- nol) but also of volatile esters, aldehydes and hydrocarbons types of , 403–411. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.05.111. Acknowledgments mo (Lucuma obovata The authors would like to thank Marco Billi (http://shan Gutierrez (1980). Consideraciones sobra la biologia florale de lucu- ): evaluacionde de la morfologia floral en seis - clones. Thesis, Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, Lima, Perù, grilamarketplace.com) (Italy), which provided the lucuma 57 pp. fruits used in this preliminary study. Junker, R.R., and Blüthgen, N. (2010). Floral scents repel facultative flower visitors, but attract obligate ones. Annals of Bot. mcq045. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcq045.

Volume 72 | Issue 3 | May/June 2017 137 Taiti et al Pouteria lucuma fruits

. | Discovering a volatile organic compound fingerprinting of

38 Kader, A.A. (2004). A perspective on postharvest horticulture (1978– Taiti, C., Costa, C., Menesatti, P., Caparrotta, S., Bazihizina, N., Azzarel- 2003). Hortic. Sci. (5), 1004–1008. lo, E., Petrucci, W.A., Masi, E., and Giordani, E. (2015a). Use of volatile organic compounds and physicochemical parameters for monitoring Laohakunjit, N., Kerdchoechuen, O., Matta, F.B., Silva, J.L., and Holmes, and Technol. 241 the post-harvest ripening of imported tropical fruits. Eur. Food Res. W.E. (2007). Postharvest survey of volatile compounds in five trop- Hortic. Sci. 42 , 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-015- ical fruits using headspace-solid phase microextraction (HSSPME). 2438-6. (2), 309–314. Taiti, C., Costa, C., Menesatti, P., Comparini, D., Bazihizina, N., Azzarel- Lasekan, O., and Abbas, K.A. (2012). Distinctive exotic flavor and aro- 95 52 lo, E., Masi, E., and Mancuso, S. (2015b). Class‐modeling approach to ma compounds of some exotic tropical fruits and berries: A review. PTR‐TOFMS data: a peppers case study. J. Sci. Food Agr. (8), 1757– Crit. Reviews in Food Sci. and Nutr. , 726–735. https://doi.org/10. 1763. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6761. 1080/10408398.2010.507910.Lucuma. In Fruits of Tropical and Subtropical Taiti, C., Marone, E., Bazihizina, N., Caparrotta, S., Azzarello, E., Lizana, L.A. (1980). Florida Science Source). Petrucci, A.W., Pandolfi, C., and Giordani, E. (2015c). Sometimes a lit- Origin, S. Nagy, P.E. Shaw, and W.F. Wardowski, eds. (Lake Alfred, FL: 9tle mango goes a long way: a rapid approach to assess how different shipping systems affect fruit commercial quality. Food Anal. Meth. tion of the maturation of the lucuma (Lucuma bifera Mol., L. obovata (3), 691–698. Lizana,H.B.K.). L.A.,Proc. Reginato, Interam. Soc.G., and Trop. Lavanderos, Hortic. 30 J.C. (1986). Characteriza- Taiti, C., Costa, C., Nissim, W.G., Bibbiani, S., Azzarello, E., Masi, E., , 105–110. Pandolfi, C., Pallottino, F., Menesatti,51 P., and Mancuso, S. (2016). As- Mancuso, S., Taiti, C., Bazihizina, N., Costa, C., Menesatti, P., Giagnoni, sessing VOC emission by different wood cores using the PTR-ToF-MS technology. Wood Sci. Technol. (2), 273–295. L., Arenella, M., Nannipieri, P., and Renella,86 G. (2015). Soil volatile analysis by proton transfer reaction-time of flight mass spectrom- Tucker, G.A. (1993). Introduction. In Biochemistry of Fruit Ripening, etry (PTR-TOF-MS). Appl. Soil Ecology , 182–191. https://doi. G.B. Seymour, J.E. Taylor, and G.A. Tucker, eds. (London, UK: Chapman org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.10.018. & Hall). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1584-1_1. Mayr, D., Märk, T., Lindinger, W., Brevard, H., Yeretzian, C., Le Quéré, Tuorila, H., and Cardello,13 A.V. (2002). Consumer responses to an J.L., and Étiévant, P.X. (2002). In-vivo analysis of banana aromath by Weur off-flavor in juice in the presence of specific health claims. Food Proton Transfer Reaction-Mass Spectrometry. In Flavour Research at Qual. and Prefer. (7), 561–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950- the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century. Proceedings of the 10 - 3293(01)00076-3. man Flavour Research Symposium, Beaune, France, p. 256–259. 17 Verbeke, W. (2006). Functional foods: Consumer willingness to com- Nisperos-Carriedo, M.O., 38and Shaw, P.E. (1990). Comparison of vol- promise on taste for health? Food Qual. and Prefer. (1), 126–131. atile flavor components in fresh and processed orange juices. J. of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.03.003. Agric. and Food Chem. , 1048–1052. https://doi.org/10.1021/ Mangifera indica jf00094a029. White, I.R., Blake, R.S., Taylor, A.J., and Monks, P.S. (2016). Metabolite atile components from mango ( Mangifera indica tabolomicsprofiling of 12the ripening of mangoes L. cv. Tommy Pino, J.A., Mesa, J., Muñoz,53 Y., Martí, M.P., and Marbot, R. (2005). Vol- Atkins by real-time measurement of volatile organic compounds, Me- L.) cultivars. J. of , 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11306-016-0973-1. Agric. and Food Chem. , 2213–2223. https://doi.org/10.1021/ jf0402633. Yahia, E.M. (2004). Sapodilla and related fruits. In The Commercial Storage of Fruits, Vegetables, and Florist and Nursery Stocks, K.C. PeruvianQuilter, J., site. Ojeda, Science E.B., Pearsall,251 D.M., Sandweiss, D.H., Jones, J.G., Gross, C.Y. Wan, and M. Saltveit, eds. USDA Agricultural Handbook and Wing, E.S. (1991). Subsistence economy of El Paraiso, an early Number 66. , 277–83. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.251.4991.277. Yahia, E.M. (2011). Postharvest Biology and Technology of Tropical and Subtropical Fruits: Fundamental Issues (Vol. 2) (Amsterdam, Rodríguez, A., Alquézar,197 B., and Peña, L. (2013). Fruit aromas in The Netherlands: Elsevier). mature fleshy fruits as signals of readiness for predation and seed dispersal. New Phytol. , 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469- Zhang, X.M., Du, L.Q., Sun, G.M., 26Wei, C.B., Liu, S.H., and Xie, J.H. (2009). 8137.2012.04382.x. Changes of aroma components in Yellow Mauritius pineapple during fruit development. J. Fruit Sci. , 245–249 (in Chinese). oilRojo, from L.E., Pouteria Villano, lucuma C.M., Joseph, G., Schmidt, B., 9Shulaev, V., Shuman, J.L., Lila, M.A., and Raskin, I. (2010). Wound‐healing properties of nut . J. Cosmet. Dermatol. , 185–195. https:// Received: Feb. 8, 2016 doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-2165.2010.00509.x purchasing intention of Belgian consumers for fresh and pro Accepted: Feb. 10, 2017 Sabbe, S., Verbeke, W., and Van Damme, 110P. (2009). Familiarity and - cessed tropical fruit products. Br. Food J. , 805–818. https://doi. org/10.1108/00070700810893331. Sanz, C., Olias, J.M., and Perez, A.G. (1996). Aroma biochemistry of fruits and vegetables. In Proceedings Phytochemical Society of Eu- rope (Oxford University Press Inc.). 54 Schwab, W., Davidovich-Rikanati, R., and Lewinsohn, E. (2008). Bio- synthesis of plant-derived flavor compounds. Plant J. , 712–732. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03446.x. edible wild plants. Biol. Res. 37 Simopoulos, A.P. (2004). Omega-3 fatty acids and antioxidants in , 263–77. https://doi.org/10.4067/ S0716-97602004000200013. 88 Song, J., and Forney, C.F. (2008). Flavour volatile production and regulation in fruit. Canadian J. of Plant Sci. , 537–550. https://doi. org/10.4141/CJPS07170.

138 International Journal of Tropical and Subtropical Horticulture