# Volatile Compounds, Sensory Profile and Phenolic Compounds in Fermented Rice Bran
## 3 Discussion
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Compounds**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Code**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**LRI Experiment**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**LRI Reference**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**LRI**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**IR30**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CI**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Aroma Description**} \\ \cline{5-5} \cline{7-10}  & & & & & **Non-Fermented** & & **Fermented** & & **Non-Fermented** & & **Fermented** \\ \hline Proylene Glycol & Tr3 & 1597 & 1599 [33] & nd & nd & nd & 0.013 \(\pm\) 0.006 & alcoholic, herby [43] \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Phenol**} \\ \hline
2-Matheuymphenol & Fn1 & 1863 & 1877 [99] & 0.006 \(\pm\) 0.0031 * & 0.014 \(\pm\) 0.004 * & 0.042 \(\pm\) 0.014 * & 0.087 \(\pm\) 0.013 * & smokay, black rice like [48] \\ \hline Phenol & Fr2 & 2009 & 1996 [52] & 0.024 \(\pm\) 0.192 & 0.008 \(\pm\) 0.001 & 0.003 \(\pm\) 0.001 & 0.012 \(\pm\) 0.002 & phenol11[48] \\ \hline
4-methylphenol & Fn3 & 2087 & 2031 [44] & nd & 0.001 \(\pm\) 0.0004 * & nd & nd & phenol, smoky [48] \\ \hline
4-ethyl2-methoxyphenol & Fn4 & 2202 & 2223 [41] & 0.042 \(\pm\) 0.0071 * & 0.002 \(\pm\) 0.008 * & 0.01 \(\pm\) 0.004 * & 0.01 \(\pm\) 0.003 * & Nutty [53] \\ \hline
**Furan** & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
2-PentyIfuran & Fr1 & 1231 & 1231 [44] & 0.004 \(\pm\) 0.001 & nd & nd & greeny, bany, buttery [48] \\ \hline
2-3-Dhydro Benoofuran & Fr2 & 2398 & 2291 [99] & 0.008 \(\pm\) 0.0018 & 0.006 \(\pm\) 0.002 & 0.002 \(\pm\) 0.0006 & nd & \\ \hline
**Lactone** & & & & & & & & \\ \hline Buyrolactone & Lk1 & 1626 & 1613 [44] & 0.003 \(\pm\) 0.0008 & 0.0004 \(\pm\) 0.0004 & 0.003 \(\pm\) 0.001 & nd & creamy, fatty [43] \\ \hline Pantolactone & Lk2 & 2038 & 2051 [54] & 0.003 \(\pm\) 0.0018 & nd & nd & nd & cotton candy [56] \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Thiazole**} \\ \hline Benzothiazole & Tz & 1964 & 1948 [49] & 0.002 \(\pm\) 0.0005 & 0.003 \(\pm\) 0.002 & nd & 0.001 * & gasoline, rubbery [48] \\ \hline
3-methylpyridine & Prd & 1300 & nd & 0.024 \(\pm\) 0.018 & nd & nd & greeny [43] \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Pyrazine**} \\ \hline
2-methylpyrazine & Prz & 1267 & 1273 [56] & 0.002 \(\pm\) 0.0005 & nd & nd & nd & roasty, nutty [55] \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{Presentation of data on the relative amount of compounds from the calculation of the average relative area of 3 replications \(\pm\) SD; nd \(\Rightarrow\) no detection; * * = compounds obtained only at 1 replication. Numbers on the same line and different letters show significantly different (\(>\) 0.05). Linear Retention Index (LRI literature is obtained from journal references were analyzed by DB-WAX column. Around descriptions are obtained from journal articles and favor website.} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}   
Sample 534 has the highest elevation value (95\({}^{\circ}\)) because the benchmark (control) was derived from white rice RB, followed by sample 375 (IPR30 NF) with an elevation value of 40-50\({}^{\circ}\) and sample 298 (IPR30F) with an elevation of 20-30\({}^{\circ}\). As they were located in the same dimension, sample 375 has similar sensory characteristics to sample 298 as both samples were IPR30 RB. Furthermore, samples 192 (CIF) and 736 (CINF) were both located in the same dimension with an elevation value of 30\({}^{\circ}\) and 40\({}^{\circ}\), respectively. Both samples have similar characteristics as they are similar varieties of CI RB. Panelists could not accept or dislike (n = 26) sample 534 (benchmark) because of its taste (bland, pungent, rancid, and bitter) and aroma (bland, pungent, bitter rancid, and sour). Conversely, panelists liked and accepted samples 298 (IPR30F) (n = 26 and 23); 375 (IPR30 NF) (n = 27 and 26); 192 (CIF) (n = 28 and 30); and 634 (CINF) (n = 24 and 28) as these samples had the dominant and accepted taste (sweet and savory) and aroma attributes (milk, sticky rice, and fresh). These results were consistent with data in preference mapping (Figure 3b).