锦橙汁键合态香气物质酸解和酶解效果比较研究

食品科学 ›› 2007, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (12): 169-172.

锦橙汁键合态香气物质酸解和酶解效果比较研究

范刚, 张弛, 柴倩, 乔宇, 张妍, 潘思轶

华中农业大学食品科技学院；华中农业大学食品科技学院湖北武汉430070；湖北武汉430070；

出版日期:2007-12-15 发布日期:2011-11-22

Comparison of Bound Volatile Aroma Compounds in Glorious Oranges Juice Hydrolyzed by β-D-Glucosidase and Acid

FAN Gang, ZHANG Chi, CHAI Qian, QIAO Yu, ZHANG Yan, PAN Si-Yi

College of Food Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China

Online:2007-12-15 Published:2011-11-22

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 以锦橙为研究对象,应用AmberliteXAD-2树脂吸附和有机溶剂洗脱分离糖苷键合态和游离态香气物质,并应用GC-MS比较了键合态香气化合物的酶解和酸解解离的香气组分。结果表明,两种水解方法解离的锦橙键合态香气组分数量上相差不大,但香气的种类构成有很大差别。酶法水解解离的组分主要以醇类和酸类物质居多,含量最高的是3-羟基己酸乙酯,其次是2-甲氧基-4-乙烯基苯酚,3-羟基丁酸乙酯,3-氧-α-紫罗兰醇和d-柠檬烯等;酸法水解解离的则以酮类和酚类偏多,含量最高的是(Z,Z)-9,12-十八碳二烯酸,其次是2,6-二甲氧基-4-(2-丙烯基)-苯酚,对聚伞花-8-醇,优香芹酮和巨豆三烯酮等。

关键词: 锦橙, 键合态香气化合物, 酶解, 酸解

Abstract: AmberliteXAD-2 to absorb and elute the glycosidically bound volatile aroma compounds from glorious oranges was studied. The effect of hydrolysis with the use of β-D-glucosidase and acid was compared. The result shows that the categories of the bound volatile aroma compounds had obvious difference. Alcohols and acids were dominant in the bound volatile aroma compounds hydrolyzed by β-D-glucosidase, in which mainly were Hexanoic acid, 3-hydroxy-, ethyl ester, 2-Methoxy-4-vinylphenol,3-Oxo-alpha.-ionol and D-Limonene. In contrast, the bound volatile aroma compounds hydrolyzed by acid mainly were lactones and phenols, such as eucarvone, megastigmatrienone, phenol, 2,4-bis(1-phenylethyl)-and 3-oxo-α-ionone etc. In addition, there was an apparent difference after olfaction analysis.

Key words: glorious orange； bound volatile aroma compounds； hydrolysis by &beta, -D-glucosidase； hydrolysis by acid；

范刚, 张弛, 柴倩, 乔宇, 张妍, 潘思轶. 锦橙汁键合态香气物质酸解和酶解效果比较研究[J]. 食品科学, 2007, 28(12): 169-172.

FAN Gang, ZHANG Chi, CHAI Qian, QIAO Yu, ZHANG Yan, PAN Si-Yi. Comparison of Bound Volatile Aroma Compounds in Glorious Oranges Juice Hydrolyzed by β-D-Glucosidase and Acid[J]. FOOD SCIENCE, 2007, 28(12): 169-172.

[1]	董烨，张益奇，姚洪正，何光喜，戴志远. 预处理方式对鳙鱼骨蛋白酶解液游离氨基酸和挥发性成分的影响[J]. 食品科学, 2021, 42(8): 179-185.
[2]	徐永霞，曲诗瑶，李涛，赵洪雷，冯媛，李学鹏，季广仁，励建荣. 不同蛋白酶对蓝蛤酶解液风味特性的影响[J]. 食品科学, 2021, 42(4): 190-196.
[3]	孙乐常，刘伟峰，林怡晨，赵阿云，张凌晶，翁凌，曹敏杰. 碱性蛋白酶限制性酶解对蓝圆鲹分离蛋白功能特性的影响[J]. 食品科学, 2021, 42(2): 23-29.
[4]	吴永祥，王婷婷，张梦婷，张瑶，郭孝成，孙汉巨，陈向阳. 徽州臭鳜鱼微生物多样性、品质特性及其酶解产物抗氧化能力分析[J]. 食品科学, 2021, 42(2): 128-134.
[5]	王佳蓉，丁阳月，姜云庆，董和亮，王秋野，程建军. 酶法修饰对大豆分离蛋白凝胶性质影响的研究进展[J]. 食品科学, 2021, 42(15): 329-336.
[6]	费烨，王雍，龚仕英，田艳，王筑婷，雷霆雯，张礼林，汪希兰，李红梅. 苦荞清蛋白酶解物对高糖诱导的HepG2细胞胰岛素抵抗的保护作用[J]. 食品科学, 2021, 42(1): 222-227.
[7]	黄瑞杰，李媚，廖安平，蓝平，钟磊，覃琴，蓝丽红，王雪娇，韦丽明，甘兰芳. 酸解法与酶解法调控右旋糖酐分子质量的比较[J]. 食品科学, 2020, 41(6): 43-50.
[8]	陈凡凡，滕飞，韩松，吴长玲，周艳，郭增旺，王中江，李杨. 酶解对豆腐干凝胶结构和理化特性的影响[J]. 食品科学, 2020, 41(5): 23-30.
[9]	高娟，杜佳馨，吴限，杨倩，方东路，郑惠华，赵立艳，胡秋辉. 羊肚菌酶解液制备美拉德反应肉味调味基料[J]. 食品科学, 2020, 41(24): 242-250.
[10]	黄钦钦，田亚平. 条斑紫菜蛋白酶解液α-葡萄糖苷酶和DPP-IV抑制活性的表征及肽成分解析[J]. 食品科学, 2020, 41(24): 110-116.
[11]	王锐，张迪雅，李晔，苏秀榕. 金枪鱼暗色肉酶解优势肽鉴定及其体外抗氧化和血管紧张素转换酶抑制活性分析[J]. 食品科学, 2020, 41(23): 91-99.
[12]	苏娜，伊丽，吉日木图. 驼乳蛋白α-淀粉酶抑制活性肽的制备与鉴定[J]. 食品科学, 2020, 41(22): 148-157.
[13]	苏娜，吉日木图，伊丽. 驼乳肽生物功能特性的研究进展[J]. 食品科学, 2020, 41(21): 321-329.
[14]	李学鹏，刘晏玮，谢晓霞，朱文慧，励建荣，张玉玉，李婷婷，于建洋，牟伟丽. 热预处理对蓝蛤酶解及酶解液呈味特性的影响[J]. 食品科学, 2020, 41(2): 133-140.
[15]	李雪，冯涛，宋诗清，庄海宁，张文宏，姚凌云，孙敏，徐志民. 不同处理方法对蟹味菇呈味物质释放的影响[J]. 食品科学, 2020, 41(10): 198-205.