Abstract
SummaryGenotype, sulphur (S) nutrition and soil-type effects on spring onion quality were assessed using a 32-conducting polymer sensor E-nose. Relative changes in sensor resistance ratio (% dR/R) varied among eight spring onion genotypes. The % dR/R was reduced by S application in four of the eight genotypes. For the other four genotypes, S application gave no change in % dR/R in three, and increased % dR/R in the other. E-nose classification of headspace volatiles by a two-dimensional principal component analysis (PCA) plot for spring onion genotypes differed for S fertilisation vs. no S fertilisation. Headspace volatiles data set clusters for cv. ‘White Lisbon’ grown on clay or on sandy loam overlapped when 2.9 [Mahalanobis distance value (D2) = 1.6], or 5.8 (D2 = 0.3) kg S ha–1 was added. In contrast, clear separation (D2 = 7.5) was recorded for headspace volatile clusters for 0 kg S ha–1 on clay vs. sandy loam. Addition of 5.8 kg S ha–1 increased pyruvic acid content (µmole g–1 fresh weight) by 1.7-fold on average across the eight genotypes. However, increased S from 2.9 to 5.8 kg ha–1 did not significantly (P > 0.05) influence % dR/R, % dry matter (DM) or total soluble solids (TSS) contents, but significantly (P < 0.05) increased pyruvic acid content. TSS was significantly (P < 0.05) reduced by S addition, while % DM was unaffected. In conclusion, the 32-conducting polymer E-nose discerned differences in spring onion quality that were attributable to genotype and to variations in growing conditions as shown by the significant (P < 0.05) interaction effects for % dR/R.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 16
Claim · model-written summary
Electronic nose resistance ratio varied among eight spring onion genotypes.
- Taxon
- spring onion
Allium cepae0 - Material
- eight spring onion genotypese0
- Outcome
- sensor resistance ratio (% dR/R)e0
- Direction
- variede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Relative changes in sensor resistance ratio (% dR/R) varied among eight spring onion genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Sulfur application reduced electronic nose resistance ratio in four of eight spring onion genotypes.
- Taxon
- spring onionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- S applicatione0
- Outcome
- % dR/Re0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- four of the eight genotypese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The % dR/R was reduced by S application in four of the eight genotypes”
t0“spring onion genotypes”
t1“spring onion genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Sulfur application left resistance ratio unchanged in three other genotypes.
- Taxon
- spring onionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- S applicatione0
- Outcome
- % dR/Re0
- Direction
- no changee0
- Qualifier
- in threee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“S application gave no change in % dR/R in three”
t0“spring onion genotypes”
t1“spring onion genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Sulfur application increased resistance ratio in one other genotype.
- Taxon
- spring onionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- S applicatione0
- Outcome
- % dR/Re0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- in the othere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For the other four genotypes, S application gave no change in % dR/R in three, and increased % dR/R in the other”
t0“spring onion genotypes”
t1“spring onion genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Electronic nose PCA classification of spring onion headspace volatiles differed with sulfur fertilisation.
- Taxon
- spring onionAllium cepae0
- Treatment
- S fertilisatione0
- Outcome
- E-nose classification of headspace volatilese0
- Direction
- differede0
- Comparator
- no S fertilisatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“E-nose classification of headspace volatiles by a two-dimensional principal component analysis (PCA) plot for spring onion genotypes differed for S fertilisation vs. no S fertilisation”
Claim · model-written summary
At 2.9 kg S ha–1, White Lisbon headspace volatile clusters overlapped between clay and sandy loam.
- Taxon
- spring onionAllium cepat0
- Material
- cv. ‘White Lisbon’e0
- Treatment
- 2.9e0
- Outcome
- Headspace volatiles data set clusterse0
- Direction
- overlappede0
- Value
- D2) = 1.6e0
- Comparator
- clay or on sandy loame0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Headspace volatiles data set clusters for cv. ‘White Lisbon’ grown on clay or on sandy loam overlapped when 2.9 [Mahalanobis distance value (D2) = 1.6]”
t0“spring onion genotypes”
t1“spring onion genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
At 5.8 kg S ha–1, White Lisbon headspace volatile clusters overlapped between clay and sandy loam.
- Taxon
- spring onionAllium cepat0
- Material
- cv. ‘White Lisbon’e0
- Treatment
- 5.8 (D2 = 0.3) kg S ha–1e0
- Outcome
- Headspace volatiles data set clusterse0
- Value
- D2 = 0.3e0
- Comparator
- clay or on sandy loame0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Headspace volatiles data set clusters for cv. ‘White Lisbon’ grown on clay or on sandy loam overlapped when 2.9 [Mahalanobis distance value (D2) = 1.6], or 5.8 (D2 = 0.3) kg S ha–1 was added”
t0“spring onion genotypes”
t1“spring onion genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Without sulfur, White Lisbon headspace volatile clusters separated clearly between clay and sandy loam.
- Taxon
- spring onionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- 0 kg S ha–1e0
- Outcome
- headspace volatile clusterse0
- Direction
- clear separatione0
- Value
- D2 = 7.5e0
- Comparator
- clay vs. sandy loame0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“clear separation (D2 = 7.5) was recorded for headspace volatile clusters for 0 kg S ha–1 on clay vs. sandy loam”
t0“spring onion genotypes”
t1“spring onion genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding 5.8 kg S ha–1 increased spring onion pyruvic acid content 1.7-fold on average across eight genotypes.
- Taxon
- spring onionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- 5.8 kg S ha–1e0
- Outcome
- pyruvic acid contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 1.7-folde0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Addition of 5.8 kg S ha–1 increased pyruvic acid content (µmole g–1 fresh weight) by 1.7-fold on average across the eight genotypes”
t0“spring onion genotypes”
t1“spring onion genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing sulfur from 2.9 to 5.8 kg ha–1 did not significantly influence resistance ratio.
- Taxon
- spring onionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- increased S from 2.9 to 5.8 kg ha–1e0
- Outcome
- % dR/Re0
- Direction
- did not significantly (P > 0.05) influencee0
- Comparator
- 2.9e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased S from 2.9 to 5.8 kg ha–1 did not significantly (P > 0.05) influence % dR/R”
t0“spring onion genotypes”
t1“spring onion genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing sulfur from 2.9 to 5.8 kg ha–1 did not significantly influence dry matter.
- Taxon
- spring onionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- increased S from 2.9 to 5.8 kg ha–1e0
- Outcome
- % dry matter (DM)e0
- Direction
- did not significantlye0
- Comparator
- 2.9e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased S from 2.9 to 5.8 kg ha–1 did not significantly (P > 0.05) influence % dR/R, % dry matter (DM) or total soluble solids (TSS) contents”
t0“spring onion genotypes”
t1“spring onion genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing sulfur from 2.9 to 5.8 kg ha–1 did not significantly influence total soluble solids.
- Taxon
- spring onionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- increased S from 2.9 to 5.8 kg ha–1e0
- Outcome
- total soluble solids (TSS) contentse0
- Direction
- did not significantlye0
- Comparator
- 2.9e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased S from 2.9 to 5.8 kg ha–1 did not significantly (P > 0.05) influence % dR/R, % dry matter (DM) or total soluble solids (TSS) contents”
t0“spring onion genotypes”
t1“spring onion genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing sulfur from 2.9 to 5.8 kg ha–1 significantly increased pyruvic acid content.
- Taxon
- spring onionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- increased S from 2.9 to 5.8 kg ha–1e0
- Outcome
- pyruvic acid contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- 2.9e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased S from 2.9 to 5.8 kg ha–1 did not significantly (P > 0.05) influence % dR/R, % dry matter (DM) or total soluble solids (TSS) contents, but significantly (P < 0.05) increased pyruvic acid content”
t0“spring onion genotypes”
t1“spring onion genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Sulfur addition significantly reduced total soluble solids.
- Taxon
- spring onionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- S additione0
- Outcome
- TSSe0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“TSS was significantly (P < 0.05) reduced by S addition”
t0“spring onion genotypes”
t1“spring onion genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Sulfur addition did not affect dry matter.
- Taxon
- spring onionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- S additione0
- Outcome
- % DMe0
- Direction
- unaffectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“TSS was significantly (P < 0.05) reduced by S addition, while % DM was unaffected”
t0“spring onion genotypes”
t1“spring onion genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Genotype and growing conditions interacted significantly in electronic nose resistance ratio.
- Taxon
- spring onionAllium cepat0
- Material
- genotypest0
- Outcome
- % dR/Re0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“significant (P < 0.05) interaction effects for % dR/R”
t0“spring onion genotypes”
t1“spring onion genotypes”
The same questions in other papers
sulfur atom · quality: sugar starch · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →sulfur atom · growth · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 24 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.