## 3 Results and Discussion
### Comprehensive Sensory Evaluation  
#### 3.4.1 E-Nose Analysis  
The E-nose provided universal information on volatile compounds present in samples, making it ideal for analyzing food odors [35]. The PCA results obtained from the E-nose data were shown in Figure 2a, with variance contribution rates of 99.47% for PC1 and 0.53% for PC2, accumulating to 100%. This indicated that the SEYs had rich overall characteristic identification, where the difference on the \(x\)-axis can explain 99.47% of the comprehensive analysis results. The distribution of the three samples in different quadrants indicated a wide variation in their flavor profiles. There was evidence that volatile molecules interact with the food matrix, leading to changes in aroma composition [36]. Compared to PCA, DFA was an analytical method capable of reducing variation within classifications while extending variation across classifications. In Figure 2b, the contributions of DF1 and DF2 were 92.798% and 7.202%, respectively, with a cumulative contribution of 100%, which fully reflected the reliability of the sample analysis. In addition, it should be noted that the E-nose exhibited limited sensitivity towards SEY's aroma substances and only captured a fraction of its overall aroma profile [37].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Amino Acids** & **Steaming** & **Baking** & **Microwaving** \\ \hline Gly & 22.14 \(\pm\) 0.40 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 27.56 \(\pm\) 2.72 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 33.13 \(\pm\) 1.55 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Thr & 53.74 \(\pm\) 4.61 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 61.38 \(\pm\) 5.88 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 80.09 \(\pm\) 8.50 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Arg & 44.95 \(\pm\) 0.82 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 62.99 \(\pm\) 1.62 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 76.78 \(\pm\) 4.53 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Ala & 20.39 \(\pm\) 0.73 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 26.65 \(\pm\) 0.46 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 32.78 \(\pm\) 1.08 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Tyr & 55.77 \(\pm\) 1.74 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 75.10 \(\pm\) 1.97 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 84.76 \(\pm\) 3.27 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Cys-s & 2.50 \(\pm\) 0.40 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.12 \(\pm\) 0.81 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.29 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Val & 38.49 \(\pm\) 0.69 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 48.37 \(\pm\) 2.41 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 57.38 \(\pm\) 3.06 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Met & 14.30 \(\pm\) 0.31 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 17.05 \(\pm\) 0.50 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 21.05 \(\pm\) 1.56 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Trp & 9.64 \(\pm\) 0.64 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 10.26 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 11.52 \(\pm\) 0.70 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Phe & 28.13 \(\pm\) 0.52 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 37.65 \(\pm\) 2.34 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 42.46 \(\pm\) 1.47 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ [PERSON] & 24.66 \(\pm\) 0.45 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 33.15 \(\pm\) 1.43 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 40.29 \(\pm\) 1.55 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ [PERSON] & 47.06 \(\pm\) 1.21 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 65.31 \(\pm\) 0.96 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 75.92 \(\pm\) 3.08 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ [PERSON] & 49.65 \(\pm\) 1.04 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 68.22 \(\pm\) 1.67 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 79.54 \(\pm\) 5.68 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Pro & 21.64 \(\pm\) 1.25 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 30.63 \(\pm\) 1.73 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 37.25 \(\pm\) 4.84 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Flavor & 262.50 \(\pm\) 6.82 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 347.51 \(\pm\) 14.28 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 410.00 \(\pm\) 11.57 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Essential & 265.66 \(\pm\) 9.46 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 341.38 \(\pm\) 15.46 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 408.25 \(\pm\) 25.60 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Total & 601.36 \(\pm\) 12.49 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 784.79 \(\pm\) 13.62 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 938.58 \(\pm\) 39.96 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular} Different letters in the same row indicated significant differences (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table}
Table 2: _Cont._  
Figure 2: _Cont._