ArticleJournal of food science2025
Chemosensory approaches to enzymatically hydrolyzed pig intestine byproducts using electronic sensors and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry-olfactometry analysis.
Article in Journal of food science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A preliminary study on the characterization of taste and odor attributes in commercial lager and ale beers using E-sensing techniques.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Chemosensory approaches to enzymatically hydrolyzed pig intestine byproducts using electronic sensors and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry-olfactometry analysis.Journal of food science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study analyzed the taste patterns and volatile aroma compounds (VACs) of pig intestinal byproducts, specifically those of the heart, kidney, spleen, liver, and lungs, which were subjected to enzymatic hydrolysis. Chemosensory property analysis was performed using an electronic tongue (E-tongue) for taste patterns and an electronic nose (E-nose), gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), and gas chromatography-olfactometry (GC-O) for volatile patterns. E-tongue analysis indicated that the samples treated with alcalase were associated with saltiness, sweetness, and bitterness, whereas the samples treated with pepsin were associated with sourness and umami. E-nose analysis detected 34 VACs and GC-MS analysis revealed 48 VACs. Additionally, the GC-O analysis revealed five odor-active compounds. The E-nose, GC-MS, and GC-O results identified hexanal as having the highest peak area, making it the main VAC in the intestinal byproducts of pigs. Multivariate analysis revealed a correlation between taste patterns and VACs in pig intestinal byproduct samples. The results revealed a higher correlation with taste patterns than that with VACs, suggesting that sample processing by the enzyme used was more significant than the type of pig intestinal byproduct. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: This study provides data on the utilization of flavor components released from five hydrolyzed pig intestinal byproducts as potential food resources. This information could be useful for the development of food resources from discarded pig byproducts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.