食品科学 ›› 2026, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (15): 189-201.doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-20251231-291

• 成分分析 • 上一篇    下一篇

国内植物基人造肉产品挥发性化合物及香气成分差异性的分析与鉴定

李晨迪,王晨,王新华,王稳航   

  1. (天津科技大学食品科学与工程学院,天津 300457)
  • 出版日期:2026-08-15 发布日期:2026-08-24
  • 基金资助:
    “十四五”国家重点研发计划项目(2024YFA0918301)

Analysis and Identification of Differences in Volatile Compounds and Aroma Components of Domestic Plant-Based Meat Analogs

LI Chendi, WANG Chen, WANG Xinhua, WANG Wenhang   

  1. (College of Food Science and Engineering, Tianjin University of Science and Technology, Tianjin 300457, China)
  • Online:2026-08-15 Published:2026-08-24

摘要: 本研究通过广泛采集,筛选出37 种国内市售植物基人造肉产品,并按猪肉、牛肉、鸡肉3 种动物肉风味进行分类,利用电子鼻、顶空固相微萃取-气相色谱-质谱(gas chromatography-mass spectrometry,GC-MS)技术及感官评价方法,以传统动物肉(猪肉、牛肉、鸡肉)为对照,系统分析国内市售植物基人造肉风味特征,并鉴定二者之间的关键差异香气化合物。结果表明,电子鼻检测出猪肉、牛肉、鸡肉及对应植物基人造肉的香气挥发物主要包括氮氧化合物、烷烃、醇醚醛酮类、芳香成分和硫化物,电子鼻能够有效区分动物肉与植物基人造肉的整体气味轮廓。通过GC-MS进一步分析发现,同一类别的不同产品挥发性风味成分也存在较大差异。在猪肉及其人造肉产品中共鉴定出293 种挥发性化合物,其中二者之间的关键差异化合物有3 种,分别为十二醛、反-2-癸烯醛和反-2-辛烯-1-醇。在牛肉及其人造肉产品中共鉴定出362 种挥发性化合物,其中二者之间的关键差异化合物有3 种,分别为乙醛、辛醛和壬醛。在鸡肉及其人造肉产品中共鉴定出362 种挥发性化合物,其中二者之间的关键差异化合物有3 种,分别为辛醛、苯乙醛和3-乙基-2,5-二甲基吡嗪。感官评分表明,植物基人造肉产品中豆腥味(2.00~5.00)、青草味(2.00~7.00)等不良风味得分较高,而肉香得分较低(2.00~4.00),说明其整体风味仍难以复现动物肉的真实感官体验。综上,国内植物基人造肉产品之间香气成分差异较大,缺少关键香气化合物,逼真度不足,如何寻找有效途径以提高植物基人造肉品质是当前以及未来的重要挑战。

关键词: 风味差异化合物;植物基人造肉;顶空固相微萃取;电子鼻;感官评价

Abstract: In this study, 37 commercially available plant-based meat products in China were selected and classified into three categories based on animal meat flavors: pork, beef, and chicken. Using an electronic nose, headspace solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (HS-SPME-GC-MS), and sensory evaluation, with traditional animal meats (pork, beef, chicken) as controls, the flavor characteristics of the meat analogs were systematically analyzed, and the key differential aroma compounds between them were identified. The electronic nose analysis identified nitrogen oxides, alkanes, alcohols, ethers, aldehydes, ketones, aromatic compounds, and sulfides as the major volatile aroma components of the animal meats and the plant-based meats and effectively differentiated them based on their odor profiles. Further, GC-MS analysis revealed considerable differences in the volatile flavor components even among different products within the same category. A total of 293 volatile compounds were identified in pork and its analogs, with dodecanal, (E)-2-decenal, and (E)-2-octen-1-ol being key differential compounds between them. In beef and its analogues, 362 volatile compounds were identified, with three key differential compounds: acetaldehyde, octanal, and nonanal. Similarly, in chicken and its analogues, 362 volatile compounds were identified, with three key differential compounds: octanal, benzeneacetaldehyde, and 3-ethyl-2,5-dimethylpyrazine. Sensory evaluation indicated that the plant-based products scored higher in off-flavors such as beany flavor (2.00–5.00) and grassy flavor (2.00–7.00), but lower in meaty flavor scores (2.00–4.00), indicating that their overall flavor still failed to replicate the authentic sensory experience of animal meat. In conclusion, domestic plant-based meats lack essential aroma compounds and sensory authenticity. Developing effective strategies to bridge this flavor gap remains a critical challenge for the industry.

Key words: differential flavor compounds; plant-based meat analogs; headspace solid-phase microextraction; electronic nose; sensory evaluation

中图分类号: