4.7 Article

Scent profiling of Cymbidium ensifolium by electronic nose

Journal

SCIENTIA HORTICULTURAE
Volume 128, Issue 3, Pages 306-310

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2011.01.006

Keywords

Scent; Cymbidium ensifolium; E-nose; Multivariate analysis; Relative aroma intensity

Categories

Funding

  1. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program) [2011AA00208]
  2. Innovative Research Team for Industry of Flowers and Plants, Science and Technology Department of Zhejiang Province, China [2009R0034]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [20080441233]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The performance of electronic nose (E-nose) for Chinese Cymbidium scent profiling has been evaluated. Changes in scent profiles of two Cymbidium ensifolium cultivars have been monitored at different flowering stages (initial flowering, full flowering, and terminal flowering) and different times combined with two gas collecting devices. Samples were collected by static headspace (SHS) method. How E-nose can be used for pattern recognition and for studying the releasing of flower scent were proposed. Data obtained were subjected to principal component analysis (PCA) and discriminant function analysis (DFA). PCA was performed on the initially instrumental data to explore the structure of each data set and such result showed that the sensory data contained information related to the cultivar and to time spots. DFA was performed to improve the results, leading to clear separations between the sample groups. Gas collecting device did not seriously affect the result of PCA and DFA. Relative aroma intensity (RAI) was proposed as an alternative concept to compare scent intensity between samples on different time points. These results demonstrate the potential application of the E-nose to evaluate the scent profile of flower. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available