## 2 Release, Detection, and Identification of Lily Floral Compounds
### Detection Methods  
The sensory evaluation method offers distinct advantages in areas such as consumer preference surveys. However, there are currently very few reports on a sensory analysis of lily fragrance. For instance, [PERSON] et al. initially categorized lily fragrance into six types using sensory analysis [7]. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. conducted hedonic scale and floral scent intensity analyses on consumer perceptions of the lily variety 'Sweetness' [12]. Recently, we evaluated the fragrance of 36 cut lily varieties using a sensory analysis system and found no significant correlation between aroma intensity and hedonic tone [22]. Owing to its superior qualitative and quantitative capabilities, the primary detection method for lily fragrance remains gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Most current studies of lily fragrance detection employ headspace solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME) or adsorbent tube methods to collect the fragrance, followed by analysis using GC-MS (Table 1). However, this method's requirements for pre-treatment, long detection times, and high costs limit large-scale sample analysis [7; 12], hindering efficient fragrance evaluation and the use of genetic studies such as quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping and genome-wide association studies. As a traditional method, attention hasrecently shifted to sensory fragrance analysis, which determines fragrance quality and consumer preferences. Moreover, some studies have devised shorter, lower-cost methods for lily fragrance detection. For example, [PERSON] et al. utilized GC-MS and electronic nose (PEN3.5 E-nose, containing 10 metal oxide sensors) analyses to evaluate the postharvest fragrance quality of cut lilies (_Lilium_ spp. 'Manissa'). Their findings revealed that the aroma and flavor intensity peaked on the fourth day after harvest, as marked by significant W2W sensor response values [23]. In a recent study, we also used an E-nose and GC-MS to evaluate the fragrance of 10 cut lily varieties at four blooming stages, finding a good correlation between the E-nose data and GC-MS data, with some sensors being capable of predicting the contents of key VOCs [24]. Moreover, another study demonstrated that the Mach-Zehnder interferometer can monitor lily fragrance in real time by detecting and comparing refractive index changes based on vapor concentrations [25]. These instruments have improved lily fragrance sample detection efficiency to some extent compared to sensory analysis, but the number of studies remains limited, and the research is confined to a few lily varieties. Therefore, focusing on sensory analysis and developing efficient, rapid fragrance detection methods is essential.  
Different methods for detecting lily fragrance have their own advantages and disadvantages, with their effectiveness depending on the purpose and specific requirements of the analysis (Table 1). GC-MS can sensitively identify and quantify the specific aroma components of various lily varieties, but the process is time-consuming. Alternatively, the E-nose is a portable device suitable for fast real-time monitoring and distinguishing the floral fragrance components of numerous lily varieties, although it has limited chemical specificity. In practical applications, different methods can be combined to obtain more comprehensive and accurate results.