FLAVOUR AND FRAGRANCE JOURNAL AROMA VOLATILES OF TOMATOES AND TOMATO PRODUCTS 395

Flavour Fragr. J. 2007; 22: 395–400

Published online 2 May 2007 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ffj.1811

Aroma volatiles of tomatoes and tomato products

evaluated by solid-phase microextraction
K. Markovi0,1* N. Vahçi0,1 K. Kovaçevi0 Gani02 and M. Banovi02
1
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology, Department of Food Quality Control and Nutrition,
10 000 Zagreb, Croatia
2
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology, Department of Food Technology Engineering,
10 000 Zagreb, Croatia
Received 7 June 2006; Revised 30 August 2006; Accepted 1 March 2007

ABSTRACT: Solid-phase microextraction (SPME) was examined to investigate volatiles in tomatoes and tomato prod-
ucts. Aroma volatiles and differences in volatile composition of different varieties of fresh tomatoes and several commercial
tomato products, such as tomato juice, tomato puree, tomato paste and canned diced tomatoes, were analysed by a manual
headspace SPME technique coupled with gas chromatography (GC–FID and GC–MS). Fresh and processed tomato aroma
was composed of terpenes and lactones, esters, carbonyls and alcohols, sulphur compounds, free acids and oxygen-
containing heterocyclic compounds. In most samples of processed tomatoes, lower relative concentrations of volatiles than
in fresh tomato samples were determined, but in some cases (especially in samples of tomato juice) higher concentrations
were observed. The most important difference between fresh tomato and processed tomato aroma was the almost com-
plete loss of cis-3-hexenal and the presence of furfural in tomato products. On the basis of the aromatic profiles obtained
by GC analysis, relationships between fresh and processed tomato samples were obtained, using multivariate PCA
statistical analysis. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS: aroma volatiles; solid-phase microextraction; tomatoes; tomato products

Introduction
The nutritional importance of fresh tomatoes and tomato
products is now well-known.1 Flavour and aroma are
essential parameters of quality in tomatoes.2 The chemis-
try of tomato flavour is not well understood, despite con-
siderable literature on the topic.3 Characteristic tomato
flavour results from taste components, aromatic volatiles
and a complex interaction between them.4 Of the over
400 volatile compounds determined in tomatoes, only a
limited number are considered essential to the aromatic
component of tomato flavour.5 Volatiles in fresh tomatoes
and leaves are formed from lipids, carotenoids, amino
acids, terpenoids (C10 and C15), lignin and other sources.6
Research with many other foods indicates that only a
very small fraction of the volatile compounds occur in
concentrations above their odour thresholds and, thus, are
actually contributors to the aroma of food.7 The pleasant
sweet-sour taste of tomatoes is mainly due to their sug-
ars (primarily the reducing sugars, glucose and fructose)
* Correspondence to: K. Markovib, Department of Food Quality
Control and Nutrition, Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology,
University of Zagreb, Pierottieva 6, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia.
E-mail: kmarkov@pbf.hr
Contract/grant sponsor: Ministry of Science, Education and Sports,
Republic of Croatia; Contract/grant number: 0058018
and organic acids (citric and malic acids are the major
organic acids) content.8
A high percentage of tomatoes produced in Croatia are
processed, mainly as double-concentrated tomato paste.
Thermal treatments during processing cause changes in
the sensory and nutritional characteristics of tomatoes
and tomato derivatives, due to co-oxidation reactions of
carotenoids and Maillard reactions.9 Buttery7 reported
that fresh tomato aroma could be closely duplicated with
10 compounds (cis-3-hexanal, cis3-hexanol, hexanal, 1-
penten-3-one, 3-methylbutanal, cis-2-hexenal, 6-methyl-
5-hepten-2-one, methyl salicylate, 2-isobuthylthiazole
and β-ionone) and with processed tomato the number of
compounds necessary to duplicate the aroma is as low as
seven {dimethyl sulphide, 3-methylbutyric acid, eugenol,
1-nitro-2-phenylethane, methional [3-(methylthio) propanal],
3-methylbutanal and β-damascenone}.
The compounds contributing to fresh tomato aroma
have been the subject of several studies.6,8,10–14 However,
there are investigations in which aroma volatiles of
tomato products were taken into consideration. Buttery
et al.15 studied volatile compounds of tomato paste,
Servilli et al.9 investigated volatile compounds in tomato
juice, while the volatiles of other tomato products have
not been studied. Therefore, the aim of this study was the
evaluation of aroma profiles of fresh tomatoes and tomato
products (tomato juice, tomato puree, tomato paste and

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Flavour Fragr. J. 2007; 22: 395–400
DOI: 10.1002/ffj
396 K. MARKOVID ET AL.

canned diced tomatoes) by solid-phase microextraction
(SPME) coupled with gas chromatography (GC). The
HS–SPME method was applied to the analysis of the
aroma profile of 12 fresh tomato cultivars and approxi-
mately 50 commercial tomato products.
Experimental
Materials
Samples representing 12 tomato cultivars (five fruits from each
cultivar: Alange, Heinz, Perfect Peel, Karibe, Urbana, Hektor,
Monte Carlo, Serdica, Hekto, Toco 70, Bagera and Belle)
grown during the 2004 growing season for industrial processing,
were harvested at the ripe stage and used for aroma analyses.
Samples representing different brands of tomato products, viz.
10 tomato juices, 15 tomato purees, 15 tomato pastes and 11
canned diced tomatoes, were purchased from markets in Zagreb,
Croatia.
Chemicals
Authentic reference chemical compounds (all of the volatiles
identified in this study) were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich
Chemie GmbH (Steinheim, Germany) and Merck (Darmstadt,
Germany). A Boiling Point Calibration Sample (Item 5080-
8716, Lot CB-2840) was obtained from Agilent Technologies
(Santa Clara, CA, USA).
maintained at 200 °C. The detector was kept at 250 °C. The GC
oven was programmed from 40 °C (3 min hold) to 190 °C at a
rate of 5 °C/min, where it was held for 7 min.
The same conditions were used for the GC–MS analysis. A
Hewlett-Packard 5890 (Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto, CA, USA)
gas chromatograph with a Hewlett-Packard 5970 series mass
selective detector. The ionization of the samples was achieved
at 70 eV using the scan mode. The mass range studied was
m/z 30–250. Helium was used as the carrier gas at a flow rate
of 5 ml/min.
All of the volatiles were identified by MS and co-
chromatography with standard substances (NBS75K library
spectra). The results were expressed as area ratio: A/IS = (peak
area component)/(peak area internal standard); the internal
standard was n-amyl alcohol (0.5 p.p.m. v/v). All the analyses
were performed in triplicate for each sample.
Statistics
On the basis of the aromatic profiles obtained by GC analysis,
multivariate principal component analysis (PCA) was used in
order to obtain a relationship between the samples of fresh and
processed tomatoes. Multivariate analysis was performed, using
the Statistica 7.0 package.16
Results and Discussion
Tables 1–5 present the ‘amounts’ (relative to the ISTD)
of volatiles found in fresh tomato, tomato juice, tomato

Sample Preparation: Headspace–Solid Phase

Microextraction (HS–SPME) Table 1. Volatile compounds of fresh tomatoes

Meanc Standard No.

Before analysis, samples of fresh tomatoes (5 fruits from each deviationc samplesd
of 12 cultivars) and canned diced tomatoes were homogenized
in a blender for 30 s. Thirty ml of each sample, internal stand- Acetaldehydea,b 1.463 0.543 12
ard (IS) n-amyl alcohol (0.5 p.p.m. v/v) and 3 g NaCl were put 3-Methyl-2-butanola,b 0.188 0.082 9
in 50 ml glass vials (Schot Duran, Germany) and warmed to cis-3-Hexenala,b 0.461 0.164 12
2-Ethyl-thiophenea,b 0.021 0.007 5
40 °C in a water bath. The samples were gently mixed and cis-3-Hexen-1-ola,b 0.027 0.002 1
equilibrated for 5 min at 40 °C. All the SPME operations were trans-2-Hexenala,b 0.055 0.054 2
manual, using a manual SPME fibre holder containing a 65 µm 1-Hexanola,b 0.022 0.010 3
Carbowax/divinylbenzene-coated fibre (Supelco Inc., Bellefonte, 2-Heptanonea,b 0.114 0.063 11
2-Methylbutyric acida,b 0.034 0.009 3
PA, USA). The SPME fibre was exposed to the sample
6-Methyl-5-hepten-2-onea,b 1.708 0.498 12
headspace for 55 min at 40 °C. The volatile compounds were Hexyl acetatea,b 0.148 0.130 9
desorbed by inserting the fibre into the GC injection port for 2-Isobutyl-thiazolea,b 0.424 0.264 11
5 min at 200 °C. Hexanoic acida,b 0.078 0.050 7
Benzyl alcohola,b 0.982 0.250 12
Linaloola,b 0.111 0.068 7
Divinylbenzenea,b 0.252 0.101 7
GC–FID and GC–MS Analysis Nerola,b 0.088 0.044 10
Geraniola,b 0.097 0.033 10
Nerala,b 0.282 0.087 12
A Varian 3300 gas chromatograph (Varian Inc., Palo Alto, CA, Geraniala,b 0.488 0.197 12
USA) equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) was used Eugenola,b 0.241 0.113 8
in this study. A DB 624 column (6% cyanopropylphenyl:94%
a
dimethyl polysiloxane stationary phase; 30 m × 0.32 mm i.d., b
GC–MS spectra comparison with NBS75K library.
Co-elution with pure reference compound and GC–MS spectra.
1.8 µm film thickness; J&W Scientific, Folsom, CA, USA) was c
Area ratio: A/IS = (peak area component)/(peak area IS); n = 3; IS, inter-
employed. Nitrogen was used as the carrier gas at a flow rate nal standard n-amyl alcohol (0.5 ppm) and standard deviation.
of 5 ml/min. A split/splitless injector was used (ratio 1:5) and d
Number of cultivars of fresh tomatoes where the compound was found.

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Flavour Fragr. J. 2007; 22: 395–400
DOI: 10.1002/ffj
 AROMA VOLATILES OF TOMATOES AND TOMATO PRODUCTS 397

Table 2. Volatile compounds of tomato juice Table 4. Volatile compounds of tomato paste

Meanc Standard No. Meanc Standard No.

deviationc samplesd deviationc samplesd

Acetaldehydea,b 0.277 0.421 10 Acetaldehydea,b 0.029 0.026 15

2-Methylfurana,b 0.121 0.001 1 3-Methyl-2-butanola,b 0.293 0.350 6
3-Methyl-2-butanola,b 0.319 0.184 5 cis-3-Hexenala,b 0.012 0.008 15
cis-3-Hexenala,b 0.037 0.027 9 2-Ethyl thiophenea,b 0.062 0.082 10
Ethylbenzenea,b 0.046 0.027 4 Furfurala,b 0.054 0.029 14
2-Ethyl-thiophenea,b 0.057 0.029 8 2-Heptanonea,b 0.139 0.086 13
Furfurala,b 0.091 0.078 9 2-Methylbutyric acida,b 0.081 0.083 4
cis-3-Hexen-1-ola,b 0.109 0.090 3 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-onea,b 0.431 0.203 15
1-Hexanola,b 0.098 0.060 3 Hexyl acetatea,b 0.017 0.008 1
2-Heptanonea,b 0.159 0.088 10 2-Isobutyl-thiazolea,b 0.045 0.014 8
2-Methylbutyric acida,b 0.030 0.002 2 Hexanoic acida,b 0.026 0.005 4
6-Methyl-5-hepten-2-onea,b 0.989 0.884 10 Benzyl alcohola,b 0.074 0.027 14
Hexyl acetatea,b 0.121 0.110 4 Linaloola,b 0.164 0.087 15
2-Isobutyl-thiazolea,b 0.115 0.084 9 Divinylbenzenea,b 0.033 0.015 15
Hexanoic acida,b 0.047 0.010 3 Nerola,b 0.030 0.010 12
Benzyl alcohola,b 0.128 0.068 10 Nerala,b 0.048 0.025 15
Linaloola,b 0.219 0.142 10 Geraniala,b 0.039 0.018 13
Divinylbenzenea,b 0.052 0.027 9 Eugenola,b 0.041 0.003 1
Nerola,b 0.096 0.122 8
Nerala,b 0.088 0.055 10 a
GC–MS spectra comparison with NBS75K library.
Geraniala,b 0.039 0.023 10 b
Co-elution with pure reference compound and GC–MS spectra.
Eugenola,b 0.666 1.284 9 c
Area ratio: A/IS = (peak area component)/(peak area IS); n = 3; IS, inter-
nal standard n-amyl alcohol (0.5 ppm) and standard deviation.
a d
GC–MS spectra comparison with NBS75K library. Number of different brands of tomato paste where the compound was
b
Co-elution with pure reference compound and GC–MS spectra. found.
c
Area ratio: A/IS = (peak area component)/(peak area IS); n = 3; IS, inter-
nal standard n-amyl alcohol (0.5 ppm) and standard deviation.
d
Number of different brands of tomato juice where the compound was Table 5. Volatile compounds of canned diced
found. tomatoes

Table 3. Volatile compounds of tomato puree Meanc Standard No.

deviationc samplesd
Meanc Standard No.
deviationc samplesd Acetaldehydea,b 0.857 0.415 11
3-Methyl-2-butanola,b 0.722 0.156 6
Acetaldehydea,b 0.075 0.063 15 cis-3-Hexenala,b 0.089 0.174 11
3-Methyl-2-butanola,b 0.193 0.283 3 2-Ethyl-thiophenea,b 0.095 0.076 11
cis-3-Hexenala,b 0.022 0.010 15 Furfurala,b 0.042 0.025 10
2-Ethyl thiophenea,b 0.041 0.047 14 cis-3-Hexen-1-ola,b 0.088 0.080 10
Furfurala,b 0.045 0.036 13 trans-2-Hexenala,b 0.082 0.067 10
2-Heptanonea,b 0.119 0.045 15 2-Heptanonea,b 0.097 0.028 11
6-Methyl-5-hepten-2-onea,b 0.913 0.524 15 2-Methylbutyric acida,b 0.032 0.002 1
Hexyl acetatea,b 0.062 0.012 1 6-Methyl-5-hepten-2-onea,b 1.171 0.318 11
2-Isobutyl-thiazolea,b 0.052 0.040 13 2-Isobutyl-thiazolea,b 0.159 0.097 11
Hexanoic acida,b 0.033 0.027 4 Hexanoic acida,b 0.079 0.012 2
Benzyl alcohola,b 0.086 0.040 14 Benzyl alcohola,b 0.069 0.062 11
Linaloola,b 0.260 0.215 13 Linaloola,b 0.195 0.047 11
Divinylbenzenea,b 0.052 0.023 14 Divinylbenzenea,b 0.034 0.029 8
Nerola,b 0.030 0.014 14 Nerola,b 0.082 0.019 11
Nerala,b 0.086 0.053 15 Nerala,b 0.047 0.020 11
Geraniala,b 0.155 0.180 14 Geraniala,b 0.024 0.017 10
Eugenola,b 0.046 0.022 13 Eugenola,b 0.057 0.030 8

a
a
GC–MS spectra comparison with NBS75K library. GC–MS spectra comparison with NBS75K library.
b
b
Co-elution with pure reference compound and GC–MS spectra. Coelution with pure reference compound and GC–MS spectra.
c
Area ratio: A/IS = (peak area component)/(peak area IS); n = 3; IS, inter-
c
Area ratio: A/IS = (peak area component)/(peak area IS); n = 3; IS, inter-
nal standard n-amyl alcohol (0.5 ppm) and standard deviation. nal standard n-amyl alcohol (0.5 ppm) and standard deviation.
d
d
Number of different brands of tomato puree where the compound was Number of different brands of canned diced tomatoes where the compound
found. was found.

puree, tomato paste and canned diced tomatoes. Fresh
tomato aroma was composed of terpenes and lactones
(linalool,7,9 nerol,9 geraniol,9 eugenol,7,9 geranial,7,9,10,13
neral,7,9), ester (hexyl acetate,9), carbonyls and alcohols
(cis-3-hexen-1-ol,9 1-hexanol,8,9,17 acetaldehyde,18,19 3-
methyl-2-butanol,7,11 cis-3-hexenal,7–9,11,13,17 2-heptanone,20
trans-2-hexenal,7–9,11,17 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one,7–9,11,13,17
benzyl alcohol,9 divinylbenzene9), sulphur compounds (2-
ethyl-thiophene,9 2-isobutyl-thiazole7–9,11,17) and free acids
(2-methylbutyric acid,9 hexanoic acid7,9). Five volatiles
were found in all the fresh tomato samples: cis-3-hexenal,
6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one, benzyl alcohol, geranial (citrus

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Flavour Fragr. J. 2007; 22: 395–400
DOI: 10.1002/ffj
398 K. MARKOVID ET AL.
and fruity aroma character18) and neral (citrus, fruity
volatile18). These carbonyls, alcohols and lactones, includ-
ing the sulphur compound 2-isobutyl-thiazole, comprised
the largest proportion of the total aroma in fresh toma-
toes. 2-Heptanone and 2-isobutyl-thiazole (one of the key
aroma compounds in fresh tomatoes,21 with an aroma
character described as musty, sharp, mouldy, pungent and
medicinal10,14,18) were determined in 11/12 fresh tomato
samples (Table 1).
Data in Tables 2–5 show that commercial tomato prod-
ucts contained almost all compounds found in fresh to-
matoes. In most processed tomato products, except for
juice samples, most volatiles were present in lower rela-
tive concentrations than in fresh tomatoes. Exceptions
were increases in specific amino acid-derived6 volatiles
(3-methyl-2-butanol and 2-ethyl-thiophene) and linalool
(derived from the isoprene–terpenoid pathway, having a
characteristic citrus, fruity aroma and sweet taste19) com-
mon to nearly all processed tomato products. An increase
in the concentration of linalool in heated tomato has been
reported previously in a study by Buttery et al.15 Tomato
juices contained higher concentrations of 2-ethyl-
thiophene, some lipid-derived6 volatiles (cis-3-hexen-1-ol
and 1-hexanol), 2-heptanone (also in the samples of
canned diced tomatoes) and eugenol. The possibility
exists that these aroma compounds could be formed in
the tomato products (especially tomato juice) during the
manufacturing process. Compounds found in all the fresh
tomatoes, such as cis-3-hexenal, 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one,
benzyl alcohol, geranial and neral, were also found in
almost all the samples of tomato products, but in much
lower relative concentrations.
cis-3-Hexenal is a volatile compound with a fresh
green, fruity and sweet aroma character, characteristic of
fresh tomatoes.10,14,19,22 Tandon et al.8 studied aroma per-
ception of individual volatile compounds in fresh toma-
toes as affected by the evaluation medium (deionized
water, ethanol:methanol:water mixture and a deodorized
tomato homogenate) and in their study cis-3-hexenal was
described as tomato-like in all three media. Our results
showed that the relative concentration of this aldehyde
determined in fresh tomatoes (0.461; Table 1) was much
higher than in tomato products. In tomato products, the
lowest relative concentration of cis-3-hexenal was deter-
mined in the samples of tomato paste (0.012; Table 4)
and the highest (0.089) in the samples of canned diced
tomatoes (Table 5).
In a quantitative and sensory study on tomato paste
volatiles, Buttery et al.15 also observed that one of the
most marked differences between fresh tomato and to-
mato paste was the almost complete loss of cis-3-hexenal.
Our study supports earlier results and observations12,14,23
that cis-3-hexenal is probably the most important con-
tributor to fresh tomato aroma. The volatile compound
present in the highest relative concentrations in all the
samples (fresh tomatoes, tomato juice, tomato puree,
Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
tomato paste and canned diced tomatoes) was 6-methyl-
5-hepten-2-one. This ketone was in the highest relative
concentration (ratio of 1.708) of all volatiles in fresh to-
matoes (Table 1). Regarding tomato products, 6-methyl-
5-hepten-2-one was in the highest relative concentration
(1.171) in canned diced tomatoes (Table 5) and in the
lowest (0.43) in the tomato paste (Table 4). 6-Methyl-
5-hepten-2-one, a carotenoid-related6,24 volatile, has a
tomato-like flavour, musty aroma and fruity taste.10,17,20,22
trans-2-Hexenal, 2-methylbutyric acid, 1-hexanol, cis-3-
hexen-1-ol, hexyl acetate and geraniol, compounds found
in fresh tomatoes, were not found in some of the tomato
products. These compounds were lost during processing
of the tomatoes. trans-2-Hexenal (an important com-
ponent of fresh tomato aroma21 with a green aroma char-
acter closely associated with attributes fresh-cut grass,
intensive, fruity and sweet10,14,22) was not detected in
tomato juice, tomato puree or tomato paste, while it was
found in 10/11 samples of canned diced tomatoes. 2-
Methylbutyric acid was not found in tomato puree, while
this free acid was found in two tomato juices, four
tomato pastes and just one sample of sliced tomatoes. 1-
Hexanol was found in 3/10 samples of tomato juice,
while in other tomato products this alcohol was not found
at all. cis-3-Hexen-1-ol was not detected in the samples
of tomato puree and tomato paste, while it was found in
3/10 analysed tomato juices and also in 10/11 samples of
sliced tomatoes. Hexyl acetate was found in four tomato
juices, one tomato puree, one tomato paste, but not in
sliced tomatoes. Geraniol was not found in any of the
tomato products.
Furfural7,9 was found in most of the tomato products
but was not detected in fresh tomatoes. Ethylbenzene9
was found in four samples of tomato juices and the
oxygen-containing heterocyclic compound, 2-methyl
furan9 (Table 2), was found in one. Furfural25 was present
in the highest relative concentration (0.091) in tomato
juices (Table 2) and in the lowest relative concentration
(0.042) in the canned diced tomatoes (Table 5).
Servilli et al.,9 in a study of the optimization of the ‘hot
break’ treatment of tomato juice, selected furfural as
the major cooked flavour compound. The presence of
this heat-induced volatile26 in tomato products is closely
related to the thermal processing treatment given to
tomatoes.
On the basis of the results presented on aromatic com-
pounds (Tables 1–5), relationships between fresh and
processed tomato samples were obtained using multi-
variate PCA analysis. The results of PCA statistical ana-
lysis were projected on two-dimensional plots (Figures 1
and 2) defined by the first two factors (Tables 6 and 7).
PCA analysis showed that samples of fresh and processed
tomatoes were divided into three groups: tomato puree,
tomato paste and canned diced tomatoes were in the
same group, while fresh tomatoes, and samples of tomato
juice were in separate groups.
Flavour Fragr. J. 2007; 22: 395–400
DOI: 10.1002/ffj
 AROMA VOLATILES OF TOMATOES AND TOMATO PRODUCTS 399

Table 6. Factor scores, based on correlations

Case Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Fresh tomatoes 1.751862 0.086208 0.29894 0.18488

Tomato juice −0.519519 1.705360 −0.14401 0.03332
Tomato puree −0.416192 −0.499170 0.80824 −1.45752
Tomato paste −0.686295 −0.645833 0.69586 1.35191
Canned diced tomatoes −0.129856 −0.646565 −1.65904 −0.11260

Table 7. Factor variable correlations (factor loadings)

Variable Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

1. Acetaldehyde 0.921607 −0.004805 −0.385336 0.046193

2. 2-methylfuran −0.290420 0.953325 −0.080503 0.018626
3. 3-methyl-2-butanol −0.240611 −0.218579 −0.941422 0.089741
4. Cis-3-hexenal 0.996123 0.034843 0.014376 0.079488
5. Ethylbenzene −0.290420 0.953325 −0.080503 0.018626
6. 2-ethyl-thiophene −0.590830 −0.209021 −0.759430 0.174631
7. Furfural −0.835135 0.544048 −0.068005 0.044003
8. Cis-3-hexen-1-ol −0.102158 0.646349 −0.756146 −0.006326
9. Trans-2-hexenal 0.553440 −0.311751 −0.772321 0.006040
10. 1-hexanol −0.072862 0.995418 −0.044382 0.043184
11. 2-heptanone −0.422103 0.721707 0.450849 0.312576
12. 2-methylbutiric acid −0.135701 −0.162752 0.078485 0.974134
13. 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one 0.893572 0.185489 −0.290574 −0.287560
14. Hexyl acetate 0.619488 0.690567 0.345943 −0.140269
15. 2-isobutyl-thiazole 0.981086 0.120402 −0.129105 0.079411
16. Hexanoic acid 0.708863 0.025511 −0.702413 −0.058980
17. Benzyl alcohol 0.974117 0.104776 0.176068 0.095485
18. Linalool −0.734351 0.094399 0.010642 −0.672089
19. Divinylbenzene 0.972364 0.109401 0.203191 0.035405
20. Nerol 0.465692 0.645344 −0.603083 0.054338
21. Geraniol 0.979321 0.048192 0.167112 0.103354
22. Neral 0.952223 0.178643 0.246206 −0.027223
23. Geranial 0.940787 −0.012071 0.321366 −0.107225
24. Eugenol 0.020053 0.997558 −0.049139 0.045403

Figure 1. Plot of PC-1 vs. PC-2 for fresh and processed Figure 2. Plot of PC-1 vs. PC-2 for volatile compounds
tomato samples of fresh and processed tomatoes

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Flavour Fragr. J. 2007; 22: 395–400
DOI: 10.1002/ffj
400 K. MARKOVID ET AL.

Acknowledgements—This study was supported by the Ministry of 12. Buttery RG, Teranishi R, Flath RA, Ling LC. Fresh tomato
Science, Education and Sports, Republic of Croatia, Project No. volatiles. In Flavor Chemistry: Trends and Developments.
0058018. ACS Symposium Series No 388. American Chemical Society:
Washington, DC, 1989; 213–222.
13. Buttery RG, Ling L. Enzymatic production of volatiles in toma-
toes. In Progress in Flavour Precursor Studies, Schreier P,
References Winterhalter P (eds). Allured: Carol Stream: IL, 1993; 137–146.
14. Krumbein A, Auerswald H. Nahrung 1998; 42: 395–399.
1. Zanoni B, Pagliarini E, Giovanelli G, Lavelli V. J. Food Eng. 15. Buttery RG, Teranishi R, Ling LC, Turnbaugh JG. J. Agric. Food
2003; 56: 203–206. Chem. 1990; 38: 336–340.
2. Yilmaz E. Turk. J. Biol. 2001; 25: 351–360. 16. StatSoft Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA. Single User Version, University of
3. Baldwin EA, Scott JW, Shewmaker CK, Schuch W. Hort. Sci. Zagreb, 2006.
2000; 35(6): 1013–1022. 17. Berna AZ, Lammertyn J, Buysens S, Di Natale C, Nicolaï BM.
4. Yilmaz E. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2001; 25: 149–155. Postharv. Biol. Technol. 2005; 38(2): 115–127.
5. Petro-Turza M. Food Rev. Int. 1987; 2: 311–353. 18. Baldwin EA, Goodner K, Plotto A, Pritchett K, Einstein M.
6. Buttery RG, Ling LC. Volatile components of tomato fruit and J. Food Sci. 2004; 69(8): 310–318.
plant parts. In Bioactive Volatile Compounds from Plants, 19. Baldwin EA, Scott JW, Einstein MA et al. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci.
Teranishi R, Buttery RG, Sugisawa H (eds). American Chemical 1998; 123(5): 906–915.
Society: Washington, DC, 1993; 23–34. 20. Azodanlou R, Darbellay C, Luisier JL, Villettaz JC, Amadò R.
7. Buttery RG. Quantitative and sensory aspects of flavor of tomato Lebensm. – Wiss. Technol. – Food Sci. Technol. 2003; 36: 223–
and other vegetables and fruits. In Flavor Science, Part 8, Acree 233.
TE, Teranishi R (eds). American Chemical Society: Washington, 21. Hayase F, Chung TY, Kato H. Food Chem. 1984; 14(2): 113–124.
DC, 1993; 259–286. 22. Abegaz EG, Tandon KS, Scott JW, Baldwin EA, Shewfelt RL.
8. Tandon KS, Baldwin EA, Shewfelt RL. Postharv. Biol. Technol. Postharv. Biol. Technol. 2004; 34: 227–235.
2000; 20: 261–268. 23. Ruiz JJ, Alonso A, García-Martínez S et al. J. Sci. Food Agric.
9. Servili M, Selvaggini R, Taticchi A, Begliomini AL, Montedoro 2005; 85: 54–60.
GF. Food Chem. 2000; 71: 407–415. 24. Buttery RG, Teranishi R, Ling LC, Flath RA, Stern DJ. J. Agric.
10. Krumbein A, Peters P, Brückner B. Postharv. Biol. Technol. 2004; Food Chem. 1988; 36: 1247–1250.
32: 15–28. 25. Adams TB, Doull J, Goodman JI et al. Food Chem. Toxicol.
11. Buttery RG, Teranishi R, Ling LC. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1987; 1997; 35: 739–751.
35: 540–544. 26. Sieso V, Crouzet J. Food Chem. 1977; 2(4): 241–252.

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Flavour Fragr. J. 2007; 22: 395–400
DOI: 10.1002/ffj