Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Influence of Extracted 5 Nucleotides On Aroma Compounds and Flavour Acceptability of Real Beef Soup
Influence of Extracted 5 Nucleotides On Aroma Compounds and Flavour Acceptability of Real Beef Soup
To cite this article: Fatma Sh Abd El-Aleem, Mohamed S. Taher, Shereen N. Lotfy, Khaled F. El-
Massry & Hoda H. M. Fadel (2017) Influence of extracted 5-nucleotides on aroma compounds and
flavour acceptability of real beef soup, International Journal of Food Properties, 20:sup1, S1182-
S1194, DOI: 10.1080/10942912.2017.1286506
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Published online: 16 May 2017.
Introduction
Flavour is the main factor affecting the acceptability of meat by consumers. Flavour of the cooked meat
is predominantly derived from the well-known Maillard reaction and the degradation and/or oxida-
tion of lipid.[1] However, only limited compounds are considered as potent odourants of meat aroma
depending on their odour threshold and concentration in the food.[2] Perception of aroma depends not
only on nature and concentration of volatile compounds but also on their availability that can be
modulated by physicochemical interaction with other food components.[3] Therefore, the variations in
the composition or constituents of the food product affect the volatility of aroma compounds.
Umami substances such as monosodium glutamate (MSG) and 5-nucleotides are effective enhan-
cers and positive flavour modulators in food products.[4] Therefore, they are used worldwide as
additives to impart umami taste to the food processed in industrial scale as well as to home and
restaurant-made food.[5,6] Umami effect is resulted by joined stimulation of added and natural umami
substances.[6] Synergy of umami substances has been widely studied and confirmed.[7] Flavour
nucleotides, 5-disodium inosinate (5-IPM) and 5-disodium guanylate (5-GMP), are disodium salts
containing compounds. They impart slight salty taste and possess broth-like and meaty notes.[7]
Most of the reported studies, dealing with the effect of umami compounds on food flavour, had
been concerned with their effect on palatability and pleasantness of simple food model systems.[8]
The effect of rising the added amount of umami compounds on the palatability of various food
products had been evaluated.[6] Ventanas et al.[4] designed simple model systems including meat
broth and two meat odour active compounds (1-octen-3-ol and 2, 6 dimethylpyrazine). The authors
evaluated the effect of added umami compounds on the perceived odour and flavour in the model
CONTACT Hoda H. M. Fadel hodafadel_f@hotmail.com Chemistry of Flavour and Aroma Department, National research
Centre, Al-Buhouth St.Dokki,12622 Cairo, Egypt.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ljfp.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD PROPERTIES S1183
systems and also their effect on the perception of the odour active compounds. However, these
previous studies used pure chemical umami compounds.
Umami compounds with a pleasant savoury taste produced by glutamate, ribonucleotides, and
chemicals occur naturally in many foods including mushroom, meat, fish, cheese, and yeast.[5,9] Edible
mushroom, with its umami taste, is considered a good source of umami enhancers and was reported as
a promising potential for application in food spices industry.[10] Agaricus bisporus (A. bisporus) was
reported amongst the most widely cultivated edible mushroom species.[11] The taste components such
as soluble sugars, free amino acids, and 5—nucleotides of A. bisporus had been reported.[9,12] On the
other hand, the economic production of yeast compared with other organisms has made it the
organism of choice for the production of extracts rich in 5—nucleotides. Yeast extracts are available
in commercial scale and extensively used by food industries as flavouring agents.[13]
Meat products are complex systems including non-volatile compounds such as protein, fat, and
carbohydrates in addition to endogenous umami compounds. During processing, several interac-
tions can take place between these compounds and the generated endogenous volatile compounds.
These interactions affect the perception of the volatile compounds in beef products. Therefore, the
results of simple beef model system do not give accurate indication for the release and perception of
volatile compounds from a real beef product.[14]
Evaluation of the effect of umami compounds, such as 5-nucleotides, on palatability of foods is
usually carried out by using soups.[15] Therefore, the main objective of the present study was to
evaluate the enhancement efficiency of edible sources rich in flavour 5-nucleotides, such as mush-
room and yeast extracts, to be used as natural enhancers in real beef soup. To achieve this objective,
flavour 5-nucleotides in each extract were quantified. The effect of supplementation of beef soup
with each extract on its palatability and headspace volatiles was evaluated compared with unsupple-
mented soup (control sample) and soup supplemented with pure chemical 5-IMP.
Extraction of 5ʹ-nucleotides
5ʹ-nucleotides were extracted and analysed as described by Taylor et al.[16] Air-dried mushroom
powder (20 g) was extracted with 500 ml of deionised water. This suspension was heated to boiling
for 1 min, cooled, and then centrifuged at 4500 rpm for 15 min. The extraction was repeated once
with 300 ml of deionised water. The combined filtrate containing 5-nucleotides with soluble sugar
(NMs) was rotary evapourated to a final volume of 100 ml and filtered.[12] For preparation of 5-
nucleotids extract free from soluble sugar (NM), air-dried mushroom (Agaricus bisporus) powder (30
g) was extracted with 500 ml of 80% aqueous ethanol. This suspension was shaken for 45 min at
room temperature and filtered through a Whatman No. 4 filter paper. The residue was washed five
times with additional 250 ml portions of 80% ethanol. The precipitate was dried again and used to
extract the nucleotides as mentioned before. From each extract, 100 μl were taken out to be analysed
using a high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The reminder of each extract was
subjected to freeze drier (Snijders Scientific b.v. Model L45 Fm-Ro, Tilburg-Holand).
S1184 F. S. ABD EL-ALEEM ET AL.
GC–MS analysis
GC–MS analysis was performed by using a gas chromatography (Hewlett–Packard model 5890)
coupled to a mass spectrometer (Hewlett–Packard-MS (5970). A fused silica capillary column DB5
(60 m × 0.32 mm i.d. × 0.25 µm film thickness) was used. The oven temperature was maintained
initially at 50°C for 5 min and then programmed to rise to 250°C at a rate of 4°C/min. Helium was
used as the carrier gas at flow rate of 1.1 ml/min. The injection was conducted in the splitless mode
for 5 min at 260°C. Mass spectra in the electron impact mode (EI) were obtained at 70 eV and scan
m/z range from 39 to 400 amu. The volatile compounds were identified using both the mass spectra
of National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST) database and comparison with those
of authentic compounds and published data.[17–19] Retention indices of the separated volatile
compounds were determined using homologous series of normal n-alkanes,C6-C22. The relative
areas of the volatile components identified were determined by comparing their peak areas to that of
3-heptanol, an internal standard compound, on total ion chromatograms of GC–MS.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD PROPERTIES S1185
Sensory analysis
Odour sensory analysis was conducted to evaluate the palatability of the investigated soup samples
supplemented with the enhancers as well as control sample (unsupplemented with enhancers). All
samples were warmed up to 70°C before evaluation, put (20 ml each) in coded warmed glass bakers,
covered by petri dishes and kept warm until tested.[6] The evaluation was carried out by 20 members
(12 female, 8 male) drawn from Food Industry and Nutrition Division, National Research Centre,
Cairo, Egypt. The panelists participated occasionally in hedonic tests. They were asked to rank the
six samples according to the degree of liking on bar diagrams expressed in the range of 1 (least like)–
9 (most like). The sensory evaluation was carried out according to ISO 8589.[20] Each sample was
prepared in triplicate.
Statistical analysis
Data were analysed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and least significant difference
(LSD) was performed to determine any significant difference amongst various treatments that were
used to compare the means. Differences were considered to be significant at p < 0.05.
Table 2. Volatile compounds in headspace of beef soup samples supplemented and unsupplemented (SC) with enhancers (5-
nucleotides).
Relative peak area (%)C
A B
No. RI Volatile compounds SC S-5-IMP S-NMs S-NM S-YE S-5-IMP +NM IDD
1 >600 Methanthiol 1.29a 2.89b 1.38a 0.71c 0.39d 0.62c B
2 >600 Dimethyl sulfide 1.89a —– 0.78c 0.86cd —– 0.87d B
3 611 2,3-Butandione 5.31a 7.98 ±b 7.01c 16.73d 5.22a 11.24e A
4 635 2-Methyl-1-propanol —– 0.10b —– 0.03c —– —– B
5 643 3-Methylbutanal —– 4.17b 0.04a 0.06a 0.03a 0.04a B
6 664 2-Methylbutanal 0.06a 0.06a 0.02a 0.03a —– —– B
7 683 Ethyl furan —– 0.02a —– —– —– 0.03a B
8 696 2-Pentanone —– 0.01b —– 0.14c —– —– B
9 718 2,3-Pentandione —– 0.46b 0.23c 0.66d 0.23c 0.58e B
10 735 3-Hydroxy-2-butanone 0.09a 0.18b 0.15c 0.45d 0.04e 0.19b B
11 745 2-Methyl-2-pentanone —– 0.02a 0.04a —– 0.06a 0.06a B
12 753 Dimethyl disulfide —– 0.07b 0.09c 0.27d 0.05e 0.32f B
13 802 Hexanal 0.90a 0.26b 0.14c 0.35d 0.02e 0.07f A
14 817 3-Mercapto-2-butanone 8.10a 20.53b 45.75c 56.17d 40.49e 65.14f B
15 820 2-Methylpyrazine —– 0.52b —– —– —– —– A
16 835 2-Furfural 0.15a 0.12b —– —– 0.04d 0.05d A
17 839 2-Methylthiazol —– 0.37b 0.84c 0.92d 0.11e 0.15e B
18 854 2,4-Dimethyl furan —– 0.06b 0.28c 0.15d —– —– B
19 861 2-Methyl-3-furanthiol —– 0.34b 0.16c 0.42d 0.03e 0.27f B
20 872 4-Hydroxy-5-methyl-3-(2 H)furanone 0.09 ±a 0.03b 0.05c 0.20d 0.03b —– B
21 899 3-Mercapto-2-pentanone —– —– 0.09b 0.58c 0.13d 0.06e B
22 901 Heptanal —– 0.03b 0.19c —– —– —– A
23 904 3 (Methylthio) propanal —– 0.03b —– 0.38c 0.09d 0.48e B
24 916 2-Furan methanthiol —– 0.08b 0.13bc 1.70d 0.20c 0.53e A
25 919 2-Acytylpyrroline —– —– 0.40b 0.26c —– —– A
26 930 2-Methyl-3(methylthio)furan —– 0.45b —– 1.40c 0.02a 0.35d B
27 956 Dimethyl trisulfide —– 0.02b 0.16c 0.23d 0.03b 0.14e B
28 962 Benzaldehyde 0.57a —– 0.04c 0.23d —– 0.11e A
29 983 1-Octene-3-ol 0.12a 0.02b —– 0.03c —– —– B
30 992 2-Pentyl furan 0.81a —– 0.20c 0.03b 0.14d 0.14d B
31 1002 1-Octene-3-one —– 0.07b —– 0.65c —– —– B
32 1005 Octanal —– 0.11b 0.13c 0.28d 0.03e 0.16f A
33 1027 Acetyl thiazole 0.12a 0.03b 0.04b 0.48c 0.04b —– A
34 1031 2-Ethyl-1-hexanol 0.27a 0.02b 0.05c 0.36d 0.11e 0.03b B
35 1051 Phenyl acetaldehyde —– 0.04a 0.05a —– —– —– A
36 1058 (E)-2-Octenal —– 0.54b —– 0.49c —– —– B
37 1063 2-Methyl-3-thiophenethiol —– 0.14b —– 0.10c —– 0.03d B
38 1080 1-Octanol —– 0.10b 0.03c 0.13d —– —– B
39 1084 1-Nonene-3-one 2.64a 0.06b 1.08c 2.53a 0.71d 0.10b B
40 1096 2-Acetyl thiophene —– 0.04b 0.04b 0.29c 0.02d 0.03e B
41 1102 Nonanal 0.27a 0.24b 0.08c 0.05d 0.05d 0.06d A
42 1104 2-Thenyl mercaptane —– 0.27b —– 0.12c —– —– B
43 1114 2-Formyl-5-methyl thiophene —– 0.02b 0.04b 0.84c —– —– B
44 1187 Decanone 0.09a —– —– —– —– —– B
45 1205 Decanal 0.06a 0.05ab 0.17c 0.18c 0.02d 0.04b A
46 1226 2,4-Nonadienal 0.48a —– —– —– —– —– A
47 1255 Benzo thiazole 0.54a —– —– —– —– 0.03c B
48 1266 (E)-2-Decanal 0.21a 0.03b —– 0.42d —– —– B
49 1267 2-Acetyl-2,5-dimethyl thiophene 0.12a —– —– —– —– —– B
50 1274 Decanol 0.18a 1.03b 0.07c 0.50d 0.05 c —– B
51 1292 Undecanal 0.15a —– 0.04c 0.10d 0.02e —– B
52 1306 (E, Z) 2,4-Decadienal —– 0.10b —– —– —– —– A
53 1323 (E, E) 2,4-Decadienal —– 1.74b —– —– —– —– A
54 1344 Dipropyl trisulfide —– 2.99b —– —– —– —– B
55 1357 (E)-2-Undecenal 0.06a 1.21b 0.06a 0.25b 0.11c 0.09ac B
56 1376 Undecanol 0.12a 0.24b 0.03c —– —– —– B
57 1402 Dodecanal —– 0.24b 0.03c 0.14d —– 0.04c B
58 1475 1-Dodecanol 0.27a 0.04b 0.16ac 0.17a 0.06bc 0.10abc B
59 1483 2-[(Methyltrithio) methyl] furan 0.36a 0.68b —– —– —– —– B
60 1498 Tridecanone 0.15a 0.05b 0.03c 0.08d 0.03c 0.03c B
61 1510 Tridecanal 1.41a 0.76b 0.07c 0.03d 0.10c 0.06c B
(Continued )
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD PROPERTIES S1187
Table 2. (Continued).
Relative peak area (%)C
A B
No. RI Volatile compounds SC S-5-IMP S-NMs S-NM S-YE S-5-IMP +NM IDD
62 1527 Benzyl furan 0.21a —– —– —– —– —– B
63 1540 Bis (2-Methyl-3-furyl) disulfide 0.09a 0.06b —– 0.09a —– 0.07d B
64 1556 1 (2-Furylmethyldithio) propanone 0.36a 0.40b 0.11c 0.34a 0.05d 0.54e B
65 1594 2 (2-furylmethyldithio) −2-butanone 0.12a 0.10b 0.13a 0.08c 0.03d —– B
66 1609 Tetradecanal —– 0.29b —– —– —– —– B
Total 27.66a 50.51b 60.61c 91.69d 48.78b 82.85e
Sample cods: SC, unsupplemented beef soup (control sample), S-5-IMP, beef soup supplemented with pure chemical 5- inosine
monophosphate, S-NMs, beef soup supplemented with nucleotides extracted from mushroom (Agaricus bisporus) before
extraction of soluble sugar, S-NM, beef soup supplemented with nucleotides extracted from mushroom (Agaricus bisporus)
after extraction of soluble sugar, S-YE, beef soup supplemented with yeast extract and S-5-IMP + NM, beef soup supplemented
with chemical 5- inosine monophosphate and nucleotides extracted from mushroom (Agaricus bisporus) after extraction of
soluble sugar
A
Retention indices.
B
Compounds listed according to their elution on DB5 column.
C
Relative percentage of peak area of each compound compared to that of internal standard on GC-MS total ion chromatograms (n
= 3) ± standard deviation.
D
Volatile compound identification was performed as follows: (A) Mass spectrum and retention index were consistent with those of
an authentic standard. (B) Mass spectrum was identical with that of NIST mass spectrum database, and retention index was
consistent with that of the literature.[17,18,24]
Control sample
Concerning the volatile compounds in the control sample, only 34 compounds could be identified,
most of them are lipid-derived compounds. Methanthiol (1), dimethyl sulfide (2), 2-methyl-3-thio-
phenthiol (37), 2-acetyl—2, 5- dimethylthiophene (49), Bis- (2-methyl-3-furyl) disulfide (63), 1- (2-
furylmethyldithio) propanone (64) and 2- (2- furylmethyldithio) −2-butanone (65) are the identified
sulphur containing compounds in headspace of control sample. Sulphur-containing compounds are
important in cooked beef flavour since some heterocyclic sulphur-containing compounds were
described as possessing meat-like aromas.[25] These compounds could be generated from either thermal
degradation of cysteine or cystine[26] through the interaction between carbonyl compounds and
sulphur-containing amino acids[27] or as a result of thermal decomposition of thiamine.[28]
Methanthiol (1), which smelt like cooked cabbage,[29] was identified in considerable concentra-
tion (Table 2). This compound was found in cooked ground beef[30] and boiled beef[29] and reported
as one of the character impact odour of stewed beef juice.[31] It can be perceived at very low
concentration due to its low threshold (0.2 μg /kg).
3-Mercapto-2-butanone (14) was the major identified compound in the volatiles of control
sample (Table 2). It was described to have cooked rise meat aroma note and considered as the
impact compound of process flavourings prepared from enzymatic hydrolyzed beef protein,[18]
hydrolyzed soybean protein[24,32–34] with cysteine, thiamine, and taurine. Mercaptoketones that
produce important meat-like volatiles can be prepared by the reaction of dicarbonyls, 2, 3-butan-
dione (3) and 2, 3- pentandione (9) (sugar degradation products) with hydrogen sulfide (Strecker
degradation products of cysteine).[35]
Acetyl thiazole (33) and benzo thiazole (47) were found in the aroma of the control sample
(Table 2). These compounds were reported amongst the dominant sulphur-containing compounds
in cooked beef meat.[36] They are thermal degradation products of cysteine either alone or in the
presence of reducing sugar such as ribose or xylose[37] and can be formed by heat degradation of
thiamine.[38]
The two furans, 2- furfural (16) and 4- hydroxy −5- methyl −3- (2 H) furanone (20), were
detected in small concentration in the headspace of SC sample (Table 2). These compounds are
considered as the secondary intermediates for production of the thiol containing volatile
compounds.[39] Compound 20 could be generated from the degradation of ribonucleotides such as
ribose −5- phosphate or from sugar degradation.[29]
S1188 F. S. ABD EL-ALEEM ET AL.
As shown in Table 2, the lipid degradation products identified in the present study were including
16 aldehydes, 7 ketons, 7 alcohols, and 4 alkyl furans. These compounds are mostly generated from
degradation and/or thermal oxidation of unsaturated and saturated fatty acids[40] in food materials.
Hexanal (13), benzaldehyde (28), nonanal (41), decanal (45), 2, 4—nonadienal (46), (E) −2- decanal
(48), undecanal (51), (E) −2- undecenal (55), and tridecanal (61) were the aldehydes found in the
headspace of control sample (Table 2). Most of these compounds were identified in boiled beef[29]
and cooked beef.[36] Aldehydes are believed to not only contribute to the aroma of food including
beef[41] but also react with other compounds to produce flavour through amino carbonyl reaction. 3-
Hydroxy −2- butanone (10), 1- nonene −3- one (39), and decanone (44) were the only ketones
found in headspace volatiles of control beef soup. These compounds have been implicated in the
buttery aroma of cooked meats.[42] 1- Octene −3- ol (29), 2- ethyl-1-hexanol (34), decanol (50),
undecanol (56), and 1- dodecanol (58) were the identified alcohols in headspace of control sample
(Table 2). Compounds 29 and 34 were found in headspace of cooked beef.[23] Compound 34 was the
predominant alcohol in cooked meat.[36] The straight chain primary alcohol has been reported to
have greenish, woody, and fatty floral.[43] Pentyl furan, which had been identified in the volatiles of
different beef products,[23,29,30] was found in the volatiles of the control sample (Table 2).
The three disulfide compounds, bis (2- methyl-3- furyl) disulfide (63), 1- (2- furylmethyldithio)
propanone (64), and 2- (2- furylmethylditio) 2- butanone (65), were detected in the volatiles of
control sample. These compounds possess potency savoury aromatics, and they are generally
produced from dehydrogenation amongst furanthiols, thiophenethiols, and α- mercaptoketones.[44]
Thiols
Thiols are very important volatile compounds, as many of them are considered as key odourant of
beef aroma.[18,21,22] As shown in Table 2, all thiol-containing compounds showed variable release by
addition of different investigated enhancers (5-IMP, NMs, NM, YE, and 5-IMP + NM). The release
of volatile compounds depends on their physicochemical characteristics,[3] and therefore, the release
of the thiol-containing compounds (hydrophilic, more soluble in water compared with other
compounds) from the matrix was higher. Compound 14, the major identified compound in control
sample (SC), showed more than two fold higher releases in sample S-5-IMP than its concentration in
SC sample. As shown in Table 2, the highest release of this compound was found in sample S-5-IMP
+ NM followed by S-NM, S- NMs, S-YE, S-5-IMP, and SC. The total yield of furan thiols, 2-methyl-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD PROPERTIES S1189
3-furanthiol (19) and 2- furan methanthiol (24), the most potent odourants of boiled beef aroma,[21]
showed the highest value in sample S-NM followed by S-5-IMP + NM (Table 2) compared with
other investigated samples. These two compounds were absent in control sample.
The higher release of the thiol compounds from sample S-NM compared with S-5-IMP may be
correlated to the synergy effect of 5-GMP and 5-XMP that comprised 0.27 mg/g and 0.21 mg/g,
respectively, of the nucleotide (NM) extracted from mushroom (Table 1). The enhancement effect of
5-GMP was found to be stronger than MSG.[30] On the other hand, the lower content of 5-IMP, 5-
GMP, and 5-XMP in the nucleotide extract NMs (Table 1) gave rise to a decrease in the released
thiols in this sample compared with S-NM. However, the salting-out effect of the soluble sugar[49]
present in NMs may compensate some of this decrease, while simple sugar interaction with water
increases the concentration of flavour compounds in remaining ‘free water’.
The decrease in thiol-containing compounds in headspace of sample S-YE (Fig. 1) may be attributed
to the lower content of 5-IMP and 5-GMP and absence of 5-XMP in the yeast extract (Table 1) or to the
presence of yeast micro molecules (polysaccharides). The ability of yeast macromolecules to bind aroma
compounds was mainly investigated in model solutions.[50] However, no literatures were found regard-
ing the more complex food matrices such as beef products. Effect of commercial yeast autolysate was
investigated[51] on a model solution of five volatile compounds, ethyl octanoate, linalool, 2-phenyletha-
nol, β–ionone, and octanoic acid. The results revealed poor effect in headspace concentration of ethyl
octanoate and linalool. In contrast, the headspace concentration of phenylethanol, at 20°C and pH 4,
showed a significant decrease. It is generally known that colloids, especially polysaccharides, can
oppositely affect the perception of aroma substances either reducing or increasing their volatility.[52]
Disulfides
Four disulfides were detected in the present study: dimethyl disulfide (12), bis (2- methyl-3- furyl)
disulfide (63), 1 (2- furylmethyldithio) propanone (64), and 2 (2- furylmethyldithio) 2- butanone
(65). Compound 12 is a degradation product of methionine,[24] and it is responsible for onion- and
cabbage-like odours.[19] Compounds 63–65 possess savoury aromatic note and are generally formed
by the dehydrogenation amongst furanthiol, thiophenthiol, and α—mercaptoketones.[44] It is well
known that compound 19 is easily oxidised to compound 63. As shown in Fig. 2, supplementation of
beef soup with different enhancers revealed variable effect on the total release of the disulfide
compounds. Insignificant (p > 0.05) increase of the total sulfide compounds was found in headspace
80
Thiols
f
70
d
60
Relative area (%)
50 c
e
40
30 b
20
a
10
0
SC S-5-IMP S-NMs S-NM S-YE S-5-IMP + NM
Disulfides
1.2
1 e
c
0.8
Relative area (%)
a
0.6 a
0.4 b
0.2 d
0
SC S-5-IMP S-NMs S-NM S-YE S-5-IMP + NM
of sample S-5-IPM compared with SC, whereas, the synergy effect between 5-IMP and the flavour
nucleotides present in NM extract revealed a significant increase in headspace of sample S-5-IMP +
NM. In contrast, the highest retention of the disulfides was found in sample S-YE followed by
S-NMs. According to previous studies,[50] the major binding sites for aroma compounds in yeasts are
connected with lipidic fraction of yeast walls[52] and mannoproteins,[53] and therefore the intensity of
such interactions is generally higher for the most hydrophobic compounds. Our finding confirms
those reported by other authors[51,52] who stated that the less polar compounds are mostly involved
in the interaction with yeast walls.
Diketones
The two diketones; 2,3—Butandione (3) and 2,3—pentandione (9), were identified in the present
study (Table 2). They are degradation products of sugar and considered as important intermediate in
the formation of the two mercaptoketone compounds 14 and 21 by the interaction with hydrogen
sulfide.[35] These diketones were reported amongst the meat odour active compounds and described
to have a buttery note.[1] As shown in Fig. 3, all the investigated enhancers favoured the release of
these compounds except for YE. Their high release in the headspace of samples S-NM and S-5-IMP
+ NM may be attributed to the synergy effect between 5-IMP, 5- GMP, and 5-XMP in the two
investigated enhancers NM and 5-IMP + NM.
Diketones
20
d
18
16
14
Relative area (%)
e
12
10 b
8 c
a a
6
4
2
0
SC S-5-IMP S-NMs S-NM S-YE S-5-IMP +
NM
7
Relative area (%)
4
c
3
2 d
e
1
0
SC S-5-IMP S-NMs S-NM S-YE S-5-IMP +
NM
Sensory evaluation
Sensory analyses are very much necessary to evaluate the aforementioned physicochemical interactions
and influence of added enhancers on the beef soup flavours. The effect of supplementation of beef soup
with mushroom or yeast extracts, as potential sources of natural enhancers, on its palatability was
investigated. The palatability of each sample was compared with that of beef soup supplemented with 5-
IMP and control sample. As shown in Fig. 5, sample S-5IMP showed insignificant rise (p > 0.05) in
palatability response, whereas the other investigated samples showed significant (p < 0.05) increase of
hedonic response. Sample S-NM showed the highest degree of liking (Fig. 5) compared with other
investigated samples. As shown in Table 2, the headspace volatiles of sample S-NM comprised the
highest content of 2-methyl-3-furanthiol (19), 2-furan methanthiol (24), and 2-methyl −3(methylthio)
S1192 F. S. ABD EL-ALEEM ET AL.
10
7
mean rank scores
0
SC S-5-IMP S-NMs S-NM S-YE S-5-IMP +
NM
furan (26), in addition to the high concentration of 3-Mercapto-2-butanone (14). These compounds
were reported as active compounds in beef-like aroma.[17] Compounds 19 and 24, the most potent
odourants of beef flavour,[21] were reported amongst the key aroma compounds in boiled beef.[29] The
high palatability response of sample S-5-IMP + NM may be correlated to the higher content of the
disulfide compounds, which possess savoury aromatic note,[44] in its headspace compared with the other
samples (Fig. 2), in addition to the presence of the potent odourants of beef flavour (Table 2).
Conclusion
The present study highlights the possibility of using edible sources, which contain significant
quantities of flavour 5-nucleotides, as potential sources of flavour enhancers instead of the pure
chemicals that are expensive and may be less safe. Most reported studies dealing with the enhancing
effect of flavour enhancers on volatiles and palatability of food products had been carried out on
simple model systems. The present study is the first that evaluated the enhancing effect of natural
enhancers on real food product. Results of sensory analysis confirmed the physicochemical interac-
tion between the components of beef soup, including the aroma compounds, and flavour 5-nucleo-
tides extracted from mushroom and yeast. 5-IMP was the major flavour 5-nucleotide identified in
the investigated extracted nucleotides. However, the pure 5-IMP showed less enhancing effect
compared with the investigated samples S-NM and S-5-IMP+NM, which may be correlated to the
synergistic effect between 5-IMP, 5-GMP, and 5-XMP in the extracted nucleotides.
References
1. Acampora Zellner, B.; Dugo, P.; Dugo, G.; Mondello, L. Gas Chromatography–Olfactometry in Food Flavour
Analysis – Review. Journal of Chromatography A 2008, 1186, 123–143.
2. Schieberle, P.; Grosch, W. Evaluation of the Flavour of Wheat and Rye Bread Crusts by Aroma Extract Dilution
Analysis. Zeitschrift Fur Lebensmittel-Untersuchung Und-Forschung 1987, 185, 111–113.
3. Voilley, A.; Etiévant, P. Flavour in Food; Woodhead publishing limited: Cambridge, England, 2006.
4. Ventanas, S.; Sari Mustonen, S.; Puolanne, E.; Tuorila, H. Odour and Flavour Perception in Flavoured Model
Systems: Influence of Sodium Chloride, Umami Compounds and Serving Temperature. Food Quality and
Preference 2010, 21, 453–462.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD PROPERTIES S1193
5. Yamaguchi, S. Basic Properties of Umami and Its Effects on Food Flavour. Food Reviews International 1998, 14
(2–3), 139–176.
6. Baryłko-Pikielna, N.; Kostyra, E. Sensory Interaction of Umami Substances with Model Food Matrices and Its
Hedonic Effect. Food Quality Preference 2007, 18, 751–758.
7. Ninomiya, K. Umami: A Universal Taste. Food Reviews International 2002, 18(1), 23–38.
8. McCabe, C.; Rolls, E.T. Umami: A Delicious Flavour Formed by Convergence of Taste and Olfactory Pathways
in the Human Brain. European Journal of Neuroscience 2007, 25, 1855–1864.
9. Yang, J.-H.; Lin, H.-C.; Mau, J.-L. Non-Volatile Taste Components of Several Commercial Mushrooms. Food
Chemistry 2001, 72(4), 465–471.
10. Zhang, Y.; Venkitasamy, C.; Pan, Z.; Wang, W. Recent Developments on Umami Ingredients of Edible
Mushrooms - A Review. Trends in Food Science and Technology 2013, 33, 78–92.
11. Chang, S.T. World Production of Cultivated Edible and Medicinal Mushrooms in 1997 with Emphasis on
Lentinus Edodes (Berk.) Sing, in China. International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms 1999, 1(4), 1–7.
12. Tseng, Y.H.; Mau, J.L. Contents of Sugars, Free Amino Acids and Free 5ʹ-Nucleotides in Mushrooms, Agaricus
bisporus, during Post-Harvest Storage. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 1999, 79, 1519–1523.
13. Nagodawithana, T. Yeast-Derived Flavours and Flavour Enhancers and Their Probable Mode of Action. Food
Technology 1992, 46, 138–144.
14. Fadel, H.H.M.; Taher, M.S.; Gad, A.M.; Kandil, E.M.; Abd El-Aleema, F.S. Flavour Release from a Banana Soft
Drink Complex Model System: Evaluation of the Efficiency of Different Adsorbents for Trapping the Released
Volatiles during Storage. International Journal of Food Properties 2015, 18, 796–807.
15. Roininen, K.; Lahteenmaki, L.; Tuorila, H. Effect of Umami Taste on Pleasantness of Low-Salt Soups during
Repeated Testing. Physiology and Behavior 1996, 60, 953–958.
16. Taylor, M.W.; Hershey, R.A.; Levine, R.A.; Coy, K.; Olivelle, S. Improved Method of Resolving Nucleotides by
Reverse-Phase High Performance Liquid Chromatography. Journal of Chromatography A 1981, 219, 133–139.
17. Baek, H.H.; Kim, C.J.; Ahn, B.H.; Nam, H.S.; Cadwallader, K.R. Aromas Extract Dilution Analysis of a Beef-
Like Process Flavour from Extruded Enzyme-Hydrolyzed Soybean Protein. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry 2001, 49, 790–793.
18. Song, H.; Xia, L. Aroma Extract Dilution Analysis of a Beef Flavour Prepared from Flavour Precursors and
Enzymatically Hydrolyzed Beef. Flavour and Fragrance Journal 2008, 23(1), 185–193.
19. Wu, C.-M.; Wang, Z. Volatile Compounds in Fresh and Processed Shiitake Mushrooms (Lentinus Edodes Sing).
Food Science and Technology Research 2000, 6(3), 166–170.
20. ISO 8589. Sensory Analysis-General Guidance for the Desigh of test rooms. International Standardization
Organisation, Geneva; 1998.
21. Song, S.; Zhang, X.; Hayat, K.; Huang, M.; Liu, P.; Karangwa, E.; Gu, F.; Jia, C.; Xia, S.; Xiao, Z.; Niu, Y.
Contribution of Beef Base to Aroma Characteristics of Beef-Like Process Flavour Assessed by Descriptive
Sensory Analysis and Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry and Partial Least Squares Regression. Journal
of Chromatography A 2010, 1217, 7788–7799.
22. Ba, V.H.; Touseef, A.; Inho, H. Significant Influence of Particular Unsaturated Fatty Acids and pH on the
Volatile Compounds in Meat-Like Model Systems. Meat Science 2013, 94, 480–488.
23. Ma, Q.L.; Hamid, N.; Bekhit, A.E.D.; Robertson, J.; Law, T.F. Optimization of Headspace Solid Phase
Microextraction (HS-SPME) for Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GC–MS) Analysis of Aroma
Compounds in Cooked Beef Using Response Surface Methodology. Microchemical Journal 2013, 111, 16–24.
24. Wu, Y.-F.G.; Cadwallader, K.R. Characterization of the Aroma of Meat-Like Process Flavouring from Soybean-
Based Enzyme-Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2002, 50, 2900–
2907.
25. Mottram, D.S. Meat Flavour. In Understanding Natural Flavours; Piggott, J.R.; Paterson, A.; Eds.; Chapman and
Hall: Glasgow, 1994; 140–163.
26. Shu, C.-K.; Hagedorn, M.L.; Mookherjee, B.D.; Ho, C.-T. Volatile Components of the Thermal Degradation of
Cystine in Water. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 1985, 33, 438–442.
27. Zhang, Y.; Ho, C.-T. Volatile Compounds Formed from Thermal Interaction of 2, 4-Decadienal with Cystine
and Glutathione. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 1989, 37, 1016–1020.
28. Güntert, M.; Brüning, J.; Emberger, R.; Köpsel, M.; Kuhn, W.; Thielmann, T.; Werkhoff, P. Identification and
Formation of Some Selected Sulfur-Containing Flavour Compounds in Various Meat Model Systems. Journal
of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 1990, 38, 2027–2041.
29. Moon, S.-Y.; Cliff, M.A.; Li-Chan, E.C.Y. Odour-Active Components of Simulated Beef Flavour Analyzed by
Solid Phase Microextraction and Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry and –Olfactometry. Food Research
International 2006, 39, 294–308.
30. MacLeod, G.; Ames, J.M. Capillary Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometric Analysis of Cooked Ground Beef
Aroma. Journal of Food Science 1986, 51, 1427–1434.
31. Guth, H.; Grosch, W. Identification of the Character Impact Odourants of Stewed Beef Juice by Instrumental
Analyses and Sensory Studies. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 1994, 42, 2862–2866.
S1194 F. S. ABD EL-ALEEM ET AL.
32. Fadel, H.H.M.; Abdel Samad, A.; Kobeasy, M.I.; Abdel Mageed, M.A.; Lotfy, S.N. Evaluation of Aroma Quality
and Stability of an Encapsulated Beef-Like Process Flavouring Prepared from Precursors and Enzymatically
Hydrolyzed Soybean Protein. International Journal of Food and Nutritional Sciences 2014, 3, 23–31.
33. Fadel, H.H.M.; Abdel Samad, A.; Kobeasy, M.I.; Abdel Mageed, M.A.; Lotfy, S.N. Flavour Quality and Stability
of an Encapsulated Beef-Like Process Flavouring Prepared from Soybean Based Acid Hydrolyzed Protein.
International Journal of Food Processing Technology 2015, 2, 17–25.
34. Lotfy, S.N.; Fadel, H.H.M.; El-Ghorab, A.H.; Shaheen, M.S. Stability of Encapsulated Beef-Like Flavourings
Prepared from Enzymatically Hydrolysed Mushroom Proteins with Other Precursors under Conventional and
Microwave Heating. Food Chemistry 2015, 187, 7–13.
35. Madruga, M.S.; Mottram, D.S. The Effect of Ph on the Formation of Volatile Compounds Produced by Heating
a Model System Containing 5-IMP and Cysteine. Journal of the Brazilian Chemical Society 1998, 9, 261–271.
36. Wettasinghe, M.; Vasanthan, T.; Temelli, F.; Swallow, K. Volatile Flavour Composition of Cooked by - Product
Blends of Chicken, Beef and Pork: A Quantitative GC- MS Investigation. Food Research International 2001, 34,
149–158.
37. Vernin, G.; Parkanyi, C. Mechanism of Formation of Heterocyclic Compounds in Maillard and Pyrolysis
Reaction. In Chemistry of Heterocyclic Compounds in Flavours and Aromas; Vernin, G.; Ed.; Ellis Horwood
Limited: Chichester, 1982; 151–207.
38. Grosch, W.; Zeiller-Higart, G.; Cerny, C.; Guth, H. Studies on the Formation of Odourants Contributing to
Meat Flavour. In Progress in Flavour Precursor Studies; Schreier, P.; Winterhalter, P.; Eds.; Allured: Carol
Stream, 1993; 329–342.
39. Cerny, C.; Davidek, T. Alpha-Mercaptoketone Formation during the Maillard Reaction of Cysteine and [1-(13)
C] Ribose. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2004, 52(4), 958–961.
40. Elmore, J.S.; Mottram, D.S.; Enser, M. Effect of the Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid Composition of Beef Muscle on
the Profile of Aroma Volatiles. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry 1999, 47(4), 1619–1625.
41. Moody, W.G. Beef Flavour – a Review. Food Technology 1983, 37(5), 227–232.
42. Peterson, R.J.; Izzo, H.J.; Jungemann, E.; Chang, S.S. Changes in Volatile Flavour Compounds during the
Retorting of Canned Beef Stew. Journal of Food Science 1975, 40, 948–954.
43. Chang, S.S.; Peterson, R. Recent Developments in the Flavour of Meat. Journal of Food Science 1977, 42, 298–305.
44. Chen, Y.; Ho, C.-T. Effect of Carnosine on Volatile Generation from Maillard Reaction of Ribose and Cysteine.
Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 2002, 50(8), 2372–2376.
45. Schinneller, D.J.; Dougherty, R.H.; Biggs, R.H. Influence of Selected 5ʹ-Nucleotides on Flavour Threshold of
Octanal. Journal of Food Science 1972, 37, 935–937.
46. Salles, C. Odour-Taste Interactions in Flavour Perception. In Flavour in Food; Voilley, A.; Etiévant, P.; Eds.;
Woodhead publishing in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition: Cambridge, England, 2006; 345–368.
47. Rabe, S.; Krings, U.; Berger, R.G. Initial Dynamic Flavour Release from Sodium Chloride Solutions. European
Food Research and Technology 2003, 218, 32–39.
48. Keast, R.S.J.; Breslin, P.A.S. An Overview of Binary Taste–Taste Interactions. Food Quality and Preference
2002, 14, 111–124.
49. King, C.J. Physical and Chemical Properties Governing Volatilization of Flavour and Aroma Components. In
Physical Properties of Food; Peleg, M.; Bagley, E.B.; Eds.; Westport, CT, USA: AVI Publishing Company, 1983;
399–421.
50. Chalier, P.; Angot, B.; Delteil, D.; Doco, T.; Gunata, Z. Interactions between Aroma Compounds and Whole
Mannoprotein Isolated from Saccharomyces Cerevisiae Strains. Food Chemistry 2007, 100, 22–30.
51. Comuzzo, P.; Tat, L.; Fenzi, D.; Brotto, L.; Battistutta, F.; Zironi, R. Interactions between Yeast Autolysates and
Volatile Compounds in Wine and Model Solution. Food Chemistry 2011, 127, 473–480.
52. Lubbers, S.; Charpentier, C.; Feuillat, M.; Voilley, A. Influence of Yeasts Walls on the Behavior of Aroma
Compounds in a Model Wine. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 1994, 45, 29–33.
53. Lubbers, S.; Voilley, A.; Feuillat, M.; Charpentier, C. Influence of Mannoproteins from Yeast on the Aroma
Intensity of a Model Wine. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft & Technologie 1994, 27, 108–114.