泥鳅不同脱腥方法比较及腥味物质分析

doi:10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201615021

食品科学

泥鳅不同脱腥方法比较及腥味物质分析

王晓君1，王振华1，王亚娜1，尚永彪1,2,3,*

1.西南大学食品科学学院，重庆 400715；2.农业部农产品贮藏保鲜质量安全评估实验室（重庆），重庆 400715；
3.重庆市特色食品工程技术研究中心，重庆 400715

出版日期:2016-08-15 发布日期:2016-08-30

Comparison of Different Deodorization Methods for Loach and Analysis of Odor Substances

WANG Xiaojun1, WANG Zhenhua1, WANG Yana1, SHANG Yongbiao1,2,3,*

1. College of Food Science, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China; 2. Quality and Safety Risk Assessment Laboratory of Products Preservation (Chongqing), Ministry of Agriculture, Chongqing 400715, China; 3. Chongqing Engineering Research Center of Regional Food, Chongqing 400715, China

Online:2016-08-15 Published:2016-08-30

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以泥鳅为原料，分别采用乌龙茶、面包酵母发酵和酵母细胞液对其进行脱腥处理，以硫代巴比妥酸（thiobarbituric acid，TBA）值、三甲胺（trimethylamine，TMA）值和感官评价值为评价指标，判断其脱腥效果，筛选出较好的脱腥方法及条件，最后通过气相色谱-质谱联用仪（gas chromatography-mass spectrometry，GC-MS）进行验证并判定泥鳅特殊腥味物质。结果表明：脱腥效果从高到低依次为酵母细胞液法、乌龙茶法、面包酵母发酵法。酵母细胞液法脱腥的适宜条件为25 ℃、1.5 h、pH 6.5；乌龙茶法脱腥的适宜条件为：乌龙茶茶叶质量分数3%、25 ℃、3 h；面包酵母法脱腥适宜条件为35 ℃、0.5 h、pH 6.5。由GC-MS分析结果可知，泥鳅原样及乌龙茶法、酵母法、酵母细胞液法脱腥处理后泥鳅挥发性风味物质分别检测出68、55、55、51 种，醛类物质相对含量分别为73.71%、40.17%、42.66%、39.76%，验证结果与TBA值、TMA值和腥味值的评价结果相一致。泥鳅腥味物质可能是己醛、壬醛、辛醛、E-2-辛烯醛、E-2-壬烯醛、E-2,4-癸二烯醛、庚醛、2,3-辛二酮等。

关键词: 泥鳅, 脱腥, 酵母细胞液, 乌龙茶, 气相色谱-质谱联用

Abstract:

This study was done to establish a more efficient method and appropriate conditions for deodorizing loach. For
this purpose, three deodrization methods, namely, olong tea infusion, bakery yeast and yeast extract, were compared with
respect to thiobarbituric acid (TBA) value, trimethylamine (TMA) value and sensory evaluation score. Besides, the odor
compounds of loach were identified and confirmed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry detector (GC-MS). The
results showed that the efficiency of three deodorization methods was in the decreasing order of yeast extract, oolong tea and
bakery yeast. The suitable treatment conditions with yeast extract, olong tea infusion and bakery yeast were determined as
25 ℃, 1.5 h and pH 6.5; 3% (tea concentration), 25 ℃ and 3 h; and 35 ℃, 0.5 h and pH 6.5, respectively. GC-MS analysis
revealed that a total of 68, 55, 55 and 51 volatile flavor substances were detected in loaches before and after deodorization
with oolong tea, bakery yeast and yeast extract, respectively, with relative contents of aldehydes of 73.71%, 40.17%,
42.66% and 39.76%, respectively, which supported the results of TBA value, TMA value and odor analysis. The off-flavor
substances of loach may include hexanal, heptyl, octyl aldehyde, E-2-octene aldehyde, E-2-nonenal, E-2,4-decadiene,
heptaldehyde, and 2,3-butanedione.

Key words: loach, deodorization, yeast extract, oolong tea, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS)

中图分类号:

TS251

王晓君，王振华，王亚娜，尚永彪. 泥鳅不同脱腥方法比较及腥味物质分析[J]. 食品科学, doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201615021.

WANG Xiaojun, WANG Zhenhua, WANG Yana, SHANG Yongbiao. Comparison of Different Deodorization Methods for Loach and Analysis of Odor Substances[J]. FOOD SCIENCE, doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201615021.

[1]	刘玉兰，舒垚，孙国昊，马宇翔，姜元荣，陈宁. 花生品种对花生酱风味及综合品质的影响[J]. 食品科学, 2021, 42(9): 15-21.
[2]	单启梅，赵晓策，罗瑞明，尤丽琴. 滩羊肌肉在煮制过程中可挥发性化合物的变化[J]. 食品科学, 2021, 42(8): 165-171.
[3]	刘盼盼，郑鹏程，龚自明，常泽睿，苏方俊，黄波，冯琳，高士伟，郑琳. 橘红茶香气特征及风味成分分析[J]. 食品科学, 2021, 42(8): 198-205.
[4]	张舒，王长远，冯玉超，盛亚男，富天昕，张艺玮，姜颖俊，于淼，张丽媛. 气相色谱-质谱联用代谢组学技术分析不同产地稻米代谢物[J]. 食品科学, 2021, 42(8): 206-213.
[5]	陈丽花，任丽霞，李东娜，马霞. 甜酒曲中优质酵母菌的分离鉴定及其产香特性分析[J]. 食品科学, 2021, 42(6): 142-149.
[6]	张琴，周丹丹，彭菁，潘磊庆，屠康. 油桃采后结合态香气变化规律及其与可溶性糖的关联性[J]. 食品科学, 2021, 42(6): 206-214.
[7]	程超，夏兰欣，杜芬妮，李伟，田成. 基于9 种风味物质的利川红SPME优化及PLS-DA风味识别[J]. 食品科学, 2021, 42(6): 215-222.
[8]	丁丹，王松磊，罗瑞明，王永瑞，柏霜，沈菲，柏鹤. 基于SPME-GC-MS分析不同烤制时间新疆烤羊腿表层及内层挥发性化合物[J]. 食品科学, 2021, 42(2): 227-234.
[9]	王贺，赵玉红，杨凯. HS-SPME-GC-MS结合电子鼻对10 个品系红松籽油挥发性物质分析比较[J]. 食品科学, 2021, 42(18): 178-184.
[10]	李昊泽，石丽丽，曹学丽，韩天，裴海闰. 风味发酵乳中香精关注成分的筛选及暴露风险评估[J]. 食品科学, 2021, 42(18): 254-260.
[11]	唐莹，贾仕杰，蒋莹，何红英，董丹，王金玲，张健. 红树莓叶茶的制备及与红树莓叶片、绿茶品质的比较[J]. 食品科学, 2021, 42(17): 34-42.
[12]	符成刚，刘文玉，陈友志，李玉梅，李欢康，周靖，张孔雀，魏长庆. 加热温度对新疆马脂理化性质、脂肪酸及挥发性风味化合物的影响[J]. 食品科学, 2021, 42(16): 54-60.
[13]	陈臣，刘政，黄轲，于海燕，田怀香. 基于GC-MS、GC-O及电子鼻评价不同加工方式对乳扇风味的影响[J]. 食品科学, 2021, 42(16): 108-117.
[14]	汤酿，刘静宜，陈小爱，杨玉洁，陈树喜，张子明，周爱梅. 基于GC-MS和GC-IMS联用法分析不同采收期广佛手精油挥发性成分[J]. 食品科学, 2021, 42(16): 193-202.
[15]	张琴，周丹丹，韩璐，龙家美，屠康. 鲜切火龙果低温贮藏期间游离态和结合态香气物质的变化[J]. 食品科学, 2021, 42(14): 144-150.

泥鳅不同脱腥方法比较及腥味物质分析

Comparison of Different Deodorization Methods for Loach and Analysis of Odor Substances

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价