## 2 Results and Discussion
### Evaluation and Optimization of Dominant Volatile Compounds  
A total of 10 responses (volatile compounds) were used as data for optimization (Table 3). It was confirmed each response follows the normal distribution, and diagnostic tests of Box-Cox were included in Figures S1-S10. Also, data were evaluated via the determination of coefficient (R\({}^{2}\)). The ANOVA, in this case, confirms the adequacy of the model (\(p\)-value is less than 0.05) and indicates model terms are significant. Table 4 present a summary coefficient for each response subjected to the model. The volatility of some responses also depends on combinations of the independent factors. Benzaldehyde contingent on AC, EF, A\({}^{2}\), 2-phenylacetaldehyde on AC, AF, A\({}^{2}\), undcane on AD, AE, AF, A\({}^{2}\), 2-phenylacetonitrile on AB, A\({}^{2}\), methyl nonanoate on AB, CF, and 3-hydroxy-4-phenyl-2-butanone on AF, A\({}^{2}\). Nonanal, 2-phenylethan-1-ol, 1-phenylbutane-2,3-dione, and (Z)-3-hydroxy-4-phenylbut-3-en-2-one depend on individual factors. Before developing an optimization model that is based on the combination of volatile compounds, it was deemed useful to estimate the optimum conditions for each volatile. All results were evaluated by desirability indices. Desirabilities range from zero to one for any given volatile compound. Zero value indicates that volatile compounds fall outside desirable limits and one value represents the ideal case. Optimum conditions, desirabilities, and predicted mean for each response are presented in Table 5. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Response** & **Volatile Compound** & **A** & **B** & **C** & **D** & **E** & **F** & **R\({}^{2}\)** \\ \hline R1 & benzaldehyde & 0.011 a & 0.198 & 0.101 & 0.259 & 0.439 & 0.007 & 0.965 \\ R2 & 2-phenylacetaldehyde & 0.000 & 0.265 & 0.657 & 0.898 & 0.104 & 0.059 & 0.988 \\ R3 & undecane & 0.000 & 0.319 & 0.001 & 0.010 & 0.013 & 0.001 & 0.991 \\ R4 & nonanal & 0.090 & 0.951 & 0.843 & 0.004 & 0.168 & 0.007 & 0.958 \\ R5 & 2-phenylethan-1-ol & 0.000 & 0.545 & 0.013 & 0.170 & 0.324 & 0.001 & 0.980 \\ R6 & 2-phenylacetonitrile & 0.002 & 0.587 & 0.018 & 0.724 & 0.161 & 0.005 & 0.965 \\ R7 & 1-phenylbutane-2,3-dione & 0.001 & 0.943 & 0.078 & 0.916 & 0.413 & 0.012 & 0.962 \\ R8 & methyl nonanoate & 0.179 & 0.697 & 0.364 & 0.246 & 0.026 & 0.031 & 0.932 \\ R9 & 3-hydroxy-4-phenyl-2-butanone & 0.000 & 0.656 & 0.001 & 0.175 & 0.542 & 0.000 & 0.991 \\ R10 & (Z)-3-hydroxy-4-phenylbut-3-en-2-one & 0.014 & 0.092 & 0.011 & 0.680 & 0.357 & 0.026 & 0.994 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* (\(p\)-value < 0.05).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Coefficients and R\({}^{2}\) of each response subjected to the model. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Response** & **Volatile Compound** & **Min (\%Area)** & **Max (\%Area)** & **Mean (\%Area)** & **Std. Dev.** \\ \hline R1 & benzaldehyde & 4.60 & 17.32 & 11.55 & 1.57 \\ R2 & 2-phenylacetaldehyde & 0.82 & 13.48 & 6.99 & 1.03 \\ R3 & undecane & 0.62 & 16.17 & 3.86 & 0.85 \\ R4 & nonanal & 0.00 & 2.62 & 0.99 & 0.38 \\ R5 & 2-phenylethan-1-ol & 0.00 & 16.72 & 8.12 & 1.94 \\ R6 & 2-phenylacetonitrile & 1.40 & 11.59 & 6.97 & 1.31 \\ R7 & 1-phenylbutane-2,3-dione & 0.00 & 6.49 & 1.22 & 0.52 \\ R8 & methyl nonanoate & 0.53 & 15.23 & 4.32 & 2.27 \\ R9 & 3-hydroxy-4-phenyl-2-butanone & 0.00 & 17.26 & 4.58 & 1.22 \\ R10 & (Z)-3-hydroxy-4-phenylbut-3-en-2-one & 0.00 & 1.64 & 0.45 & 0.11 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Responses (volatile compounds) used for the optimization model. The best conditions proposed for the overall response of volatile components was A: 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C, B: 15 min, C: 30 min, D: 700 rpm, E: 6 mL, F: 1:3 (\(\
icefrac{{r}}{{w}}\)) with total desirability over 0.50 (Figure 5).