食品科学 ›› 2020, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (16): 193-201.doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-20190823-238

• 成分分析 • 上一篇    

GC-MS与电子感官结合对烟熏液风味物质的分析

宋丽,陈星星,谷风林,胡可,吴桂苹,朱秋劲,陶锐6   

  1. (1.贵州大学酿酒与食品工程学院,贵州省农畜产品贮藏与加工重点实验室,贵州 贵阳 550025;2.中国热带农业科学院香料饮料研究所,海南 万宁 571533;3.华中农业大学食品科学技术学院,湖北 武汉 430070;4.国家重要热带作物工程技术研究中心,海南 万宁 571533;5.海南省热带香料饮料作物工程技术研究中心,海南 万宁 571533;6.海南海垦胡椒产业股份有限公司,海南 海口 571100)
  • 发布日期:2020-08-19
  • 基金资助:
    “十三五”国家重点研发计划重点专项(2018YFD0401200);海南省重大科技计划项目(zdkj201814); 朱秋劲-百层次创新型人才项目(黔科合平台人才[2016]5662)

Flavor Components of Liquid Smoke Analyzed by GC-MS Combined with Electronic Sensory Systems

SONG Li, CHEN Xingxing, GU Fenglin, HU Ke, WU Guiping, ZHU Qiujin, TAO Rui6   

  1. (1. Guizhou Province Key Laboratory of Agricultural and Animal Products Processing and Storage, School of Liquor and Food Engineering, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China;2. Spice and Beverage Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences, Wanning 571533, China;3. College of Food Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China;4. National Center of Important Tropical Crops Engineering and Technology Research, Wanning 571533, China;5. Hainan Provincial Engineering Research Center of Tropical Spice and Beverage Crops, Wanning 571533, China;6. Hainan Haiken Pepper Industry Co. Ltd., Haikou 571100, China)
  • Published:2020-08-19

摘要: 为揭示不同烟熏液风味物质的差异,以4 种山楂核烟熏液和5 种红箭牌烟熏液为研究对象,采用电子鼻、电子舌和气相色谱-质谱(gas chromatography-mass spectrometry,GC-MS)联用技术对其风味品质进行分析评价。从电子鼻结果可知,4 种山楂核烟熏液区别于5 种红箭烟熏液,在风味上具有相似性。电子舌数据结合主成分分析发现7 种类型烟熏液(油溶性2 种烟熏液除外)在滋味品质整体结构上存在差异,且烟熏液C-10-03和C-10-10主要受咸味影响,其余5 种烟熏液主要受咸味、苦味和涩味及丰富度的影响,其中I号烟熏液同时受到酸味的影响。GC-MS检测结果共鉴定出156 种风味化合物,包括酮类、酚类、酸类、醛类、醇类、酯类、含氮类和其他类化合物共8 类,且含量各不相同,其中酮类化合物在9 种烟熏液中含量普遍较高,其次是酚类以及酸类化合物。最后通过种类主成分分析获得烟熏液风味物质品质综合评价模型,9 种烟熏液的综合得分由高到低依次为C-10-05、C-10-10、C-10-03、C-10-11、C-10-22、II号、II-2002、I号、II-2003烟熏液,从而揭示山楂核烟熏液与红箭烟熏液在风味物质上存在差异。

关键词: 烟熏液;电子鼻;电子舌;气相色谱-质谱;风味

Abstract: In this study, four domestic hawthorn kernel liquid smokes: I, II, II-2002 and II-2003 and five liquid smokes produced by Red Arrow (USA): Smokez poly C-10-03, C-10-05, C-10-10, C-10-11, and C-10-22 were evaluated and compared for their flavor components using electronic nose and electronic tongue technology combined with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The results of electronic nose showed discrimination of the domestic liquid smokes from the imported ones, which had similarity in flavor. Principal component analysis performed on the electronic tongue data revealed that there were differences in overall taste profile among all liquid smokes except for oil-soluble C-10-11 and C-10-22, and C-10-03 and C-10-10 were mainly affected by salty taste while the five others were affected by salty taste, bitterness and astringency and richness. Besides, liquid smoke I was also affected by sourness. A total of 156 flavor compounds, including ketones, phenols, acids, aldehydes, alcohols, esters, nitrogen and other compounds, were identified by GC-MS. Ketones were dominant, followed by phenols and acids. Finally, a comprehensive evaluation model for the flavor of liquid smokes was obtained by principal component analysis. The comprehensive flavor scores of the nine liquid smokes were in the following decreasing order: C-10-05, C-10-10, C-10-03, C-10-11, C-10-22, II, II-2002, I, and II-2003, revealing the difference in flavor between hawthorn kernel liquid smokes and Red Arrow-produced liquid smokes.

Key words: liquid smoke; electronic nose; electronic tongue; gas chromatography-mass spectrometry; flavor

中图分类号: