## 4 Conclusions  
The study concluded that the aroma and flavour of lamb meat were affected by the cooking methods. Among the four cooking procedures, there existed a significant change in the aromatic and flavour profiles. The reason might be due to heating temperature and the method of cooking used. The use of dry heat cooking methods such as charcoal grilling had a different impact on the volatile profile of lamb meat as compared to superheated-steam roasting. Moreover, superheated steam had a higher content of the volatile compounds while charcoal and other methods had fewer compounds, which suggests that due to higher temperature, some important volatile compounds might be lost upon heating.  
Principal component analysis of GC-MS and e-nose data showed satisfactory separation between groups. With different cooking methods, the protein, amino acids and flavour compounds in lamb increased contributing to the typical flavours of the product. The different temperature applied during lamb cooking may be the critical contributor to formation of varied volatile flavour compounds at different cooking time points. From the e-nose results, it can be concluded that cooking lamb meat patties at low temperature resulted in low amounts of Strecker degradation compounds that account for the strong meaty flavour. In addition, few cyclic compounds were formed such as alkenes indicating that heat treatment was not very strong. Therefore, the meat of our study had low lamb odour and flavour. Further investigation is needed to understand the biochemical changes that could govern the aromatic profile modifications in cooked lamb meat.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \begin{tabular}{c} **(I) Cooking** \\ **Method** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **(J) Cooking** \\ **Difference (I-J)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean** \\ **Standard Error** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Significance.** \\ **Significance.** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{CRR} & EBR & 130.91 * & 6.46 & 0.00 \\  & IR & 128.49 * & 6.46 & 0.00 \\  & SHR & 215.32 * & 6.46 & 0.00 \\  & CRR & \(-\)130.91 * & 6.46 & 0.00 \\  & IR & \(-\)2.41 & 6.46 & 0.70 \\  & SHR & 84.41 * & 6.46 & 0.00 \\  & CRR & \(-\)128.49 * & 6.46 & 0.00 \\ IR & EBR & 2.4182 & 6.46 & 0.70 \\  & SHR & 86.83 * & 6.46 & 0.00 \\  & CRR & \(-\)215.32 * & 6.46 & 0.00 \\ SHR & EBR & \(-\)84.41 * & 6.46 & 0.00 \\  & IR & \(-\)86.83 * & 6.46 & 0.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} The error term is Mean Square (Error) = 584.976. * The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.  
\end{table}
Table 4: Multiple-comparison test between the cooking treatments for e-tongue analysis.  
**Author Contributions:** [PERSON] and [PERSON] performed the experiments and wrote the whole manuscript after analysis and review of the literature. [PERSON] checked the results, verified the data and helped in the scientific editing of the manuscript. [PERSON]-[PERSON] critically revised the whole manuscript and gave suggestions for improvement of the draft. [PERSON] helped in data analysis with table and figure formation, and [PERSON] critically revised the whole manuscript with technical editing and improving the aim of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
**Funding:** This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31901718) and National Key R&D Program of China (No. 2019 YFC1606200).  
**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.  
**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.  
**Acknowledgments:** This work was financially supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2019 YFC1606200), National Natural Science Foundation of China (31901718) and Modern Agricultural Talent Support Program--Outstanding Talents and Innovative Team of Agricultural Scientific Research (2016-2020).  
**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.