Differences in Sensory,Texture and Aroma Components of Different Sweet Potato Varieties after Baking

TIAN Qing; SUN Liyong; YANG Shengguang; WANG Xueqing; HU Yaya; HAN Meikun; LIU Lanfu; MA Zhimin; MOU Dehua

doi:10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2020050029

Volume 42 Issue 5

Feb. 2021

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Abstract

References

Science and Technology of Food Industry > 2021 > 42(5): 85-92. > DOI: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2020050029

TIAN Qing, SUN Liyong, YANG Shengguang, WANG Xueqing, HU Yaya, HAN Meikun, LIU Lanfu, MA Zhimin, MOU Dehua. Differences in Sensory,Texture and Aroma Components of Different Sweet Potato Varieties after Baking[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2021, 42(5): 85-92. DOI: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2020050029

Citation:

PDF (1384 KB)

Differences in Sensory,Texture and Aroma Components of Different Sweet Potato Varieties after Baking

1. Institution of Cereal and Oil Crops/Crop Genetics and Breeding Laboratory, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Science, Shijiazhuang 050035, China;
2. College of Food Science and Biology, Hebei University of Science and Technology, Shijiazhuang 050018, China;
3. Hebei Collaborative Innovation Center, Shijiazhuang 050000, China;
4. Guangzong Agricultural Bureau, Xingtai 054600, China

More Information

Received Date: May 05, 2020
Available Online: March 02, 2021

Graphical Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Five varieties of sweet potatoes were selected as experimental materials,and differences in physical and chemical indexes,sensory score,aroma components and texture characteristics of the different varieties of sweet potatoes after baking were studied. The physical and chemical indexes showed that the protein content of starch sweet potato was lower than that of fresh sweet potato. The total sugar content of starch sweet potato was lower than that of fresh sweet potato. The total sugar content of Hongyao was the highest in fresh sweet potato.Sensory evaluation showed that the taste of Hongyao and Pushu32 were better after baking in fresh sweet potato. Jifen No.1 was better in starch sweet potato.The taste of Hongyao was the best. Texture and correlation analysis showed that the overall taste was negatively correlated with chewiness and cohesiveness(P<0.05),respectively. Hongyao had the best taste because of its lowest cohesiveness and chewiness. GC-MS and PLSDA analysis showed that benzaldehyde,phenylacetaldehyde,nonanal,nerol,damascone,linalool,4-vinyl-2-methoxyphenol,α-terpinene were the common aroma components among the tested varieties. Linalool,decaldehyde,2-camphene,nonanal and furfural were the important aroma components of sweet potato. All in all,Hongyao was the most suitable sweet potato for roast.
- sweet potato varieties,
- bake,
- physical and chemical indicators,
- sensory evaluation,
- aroma,
- texture characteristics

FullText(HTML)

References (29)

References

[1]	薛冠炜,李臣,崔鹏,等.甘薯及其加工产品的质地研究进展[J].浙江农业科学,2018,59(4):609-612.
[2]	兰岚,周婵媛,唐乐,等.甘薯营养价值及综合开发利用[J].现代化农业,2016(12):27-30.
[3]	李天培.番薯的营养和经济价值[J].中国土特产,2000(6):28.
[4]	张婷,陈小伟,张琪,等.紫薯功能性与其食品开发研究进展[J].食品工业科技,2018,39(13):315-324.
[5]	张立明,王庆美,王荫墀.甘薯的主要营养成分和保健作用[J].杂粮作物,2003,23(3):162-166.
[6]	Maria J O C,Jokie B,Jennifer M A,Comparison of the volatile components of two cultivars of potato cooked by boiling,conventional baking and microwave baking[J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,2002(82):1080-1087.
[7]	刘兰服,马志民,孙立永.甘薯品种——冀薯99、冀薯332[J].河北科技报,2019,9(B04):1.
[8]	徐皓,党娅,潘瑞瑞,等.6种甘薯贮藏过程中4项生理指标的变化[J].中国瓜菜,2018,31(8):36-39.
[9]	温春秀,刘灵娣,谢晓亮,等.紫苏新品种‘冀紫1号’和‘冀紫2号’[J].园艺学报,2018,45(S2):2861-2862.
[10]	敖影蓉,司徒仕相,朱宗庆,等.甘薯新品种普薯32号的种植表现及高产栽培技术[J].安徽农学通报,2016,22(13):49-50.
[11]	潘建立,阮弋飞,徐健,等.天目迷你小香薯的栽培和发展前景[J].栽培育种,2016,21(23):27.
[12]	李臣,薛冠炜,黄静艳,等.甘薯贮藏期主要营养成分及香味组分的变化[J].浙江农业学报,2018,30(6):1056-1062.
[13]	Yan W,Stanley J K.Effect of cooking method on the aroma constituents of sweet potatoes[J]. Journal of the Science of Food Quality,2001(24):67-78.
[14]	Chan C F,Chiang C M,Lai Y C,et al. Changes in sugar composition during baking and their effects on sensory attributes of baked sweet potatoes[J].J Food Sci Technol,2014,51(12):4072-4077.
[15]	Shingh S,Raina C S,Bawa A S,et al. Effect of heat-moisture treatment and acid modification on rheological,textural,and differential scanning calorimetry characteristics of sweet potato starch[J]. Journal of Food Science,2010,70(6):373-378.
[16]	Nakamura Y,Kuma G T.Cell structure and starch properties associated with the texture of steamed tuberous roots for different sweet potato cultivars[J]. Chinese Crop Society,2008(7):125-129.
[17]	Horvat R J,Arrendale R F,Dull G G,et al. Volatile constituents and sugars of three diverse cultivars of sweet potatoes[Ipomoea batatas(L.)Lam.] [J].Journal of Food Science,1991,56(3):714-715.
[18]	Sun J B,Severson R F,Kays S J.Effect of heating temperature and microwave pretreatment on the formation of sugars and volatiles in jewel sweetpotato[J].Journal of Food Quality,1994,17(6):447-456.
[19]	向小乐,余佶,杨万根,等.不同加热熟化工艺对湘味烤乳猪风味的影响[J].食品与发酵工业,2015,41(5):128-134.
[20]	崔亚辉,徐芳,王丰俊,等.板栗加工工艺对挥发性香气成分的影响[J].食品与发酵工业,2012,38(12):99-103.
[21]	Wang Y,Kays S J. Effect of cooking method on the aroma constituents of sweet potatoes[Ipomoea batatas(L.)Lam.] [J]. Journal of Food Quality,2001,24(1):67-78.
[22]	Huang C L,Liao W C,Chan C F. Storage performance of Taiwanese sweet potato cultivars[J].J Food Sci Technol,2014,51(12):4019-4025.
[23]	刘玉花,宋江峰,李大婧,等.速冻甜玉米风味物质HS-SPME/GC-MS分析[J].食品工业科技,2010,31(7):95-98.
[24]	罗凤莲,夏延斌,欧阳建勋,等.烹制加工对板栗挥发性物质的影响[J].食品科技,2013,38(12):64-68.
[25]	牛云蔚,肖作兵,郭佳琳,等.橙汁香气物质及其风味在储藏过程中的变化规律研究[J].食品工业科技,2015,36(4):305-309.
[26]	侯圆圆,王兴国,刘元法.GC-O与GC-MS结合鉴定天然乳脂风味中的特征致香成分[J].食品工业科技,2008,29(3):143-145.
[27]	罗章,马美湖,孙术国,等.不同加热处理对牦牛肉风味组成和质构特性的影响[J]. 食品科学,2013,33(15):148-154.
[28]	Stanley J Kays,Horvat R J.A comparison of the volatile constituents and sugars of representative Asian,Central American and North American sweet potatoes[J].Food Quality and Chemical Composition,1984:577-586.
[29]	孙红玉,李晓颖,石颖,等.烘烤板栗的风味成分分析[J].食品科技,2018,43(7):322-326.

Supplements (0)

Cited By

Cited by

Periodical cited type(20)

1.	蒋云聪，张玉涵，魏占姣，齐立军，武亚明. 分子蒸馏精制胡椒精油工艺优化及其成分分析. 中国食品添加剂. 2024(01): 266-271 .
2.	周宇，提靖靓，袁梦，翟成凯，章海风，李春梅，王芸. 三个地区马铃薯烘烤后食用品质评价分析. 美食研究. 2024(01): 86-94 .
3.	张琳，胡娅洁，康海龙，李慧，刘庆爽，喻东威，于敏，逯刚. 基于超快速电子鼻对生乳快速鉴别及应用. 中国食品添加剂. 2024(08): 208-216 .
4.	崔春，梁佳欣，袁梦，高明奇，陈芝飞，张弛，杨雯静，邢雨晴，黄家乐，许春平. 不同干燥方式对甘薯固体香料挥发性/半挥发性成分和表面结构的影响. 食品工业科技. 2023(10): 27-35 . 本站查看
5.	杨红玉，张颖，吴梦茜，朱慧，李洪梅，黄璐琦，田慧，袁媛. 米蒸地黄辅料米的优选及其抗骨质疏松作用研究. 中国中药杂志. 2023(10): 2749-2756 .
6.	庄志雄，张雁，邓媛元，唐小俊，刘光，李萍，李雁. 烫漂及喷雾干燥对甜玉米挥发性风味化合物的影响. 食品科学. 2023(14): 274-282 .
7.	韩艳秋，叶春苗，李莉峰. 乳酸菌发酵对薯干质构和风味的影响. 食品研究与开发. 2023(15): 50-54 .
8.	尤俊昊，张保，荀航，姚曦，王进，汤锋. 毛竹竹秆加压热水提取工艺优化及化学成分分析. 林产化学与工业. 2023(04): 107-114 .
9.	肖庆泉. 栽培密度与钾肥施用量对普薯32农艺性状和产量的影响. 福建农业科技. 2023(07): 67-72 .
10.	肖庆泉. 秋季不同移栽期对鲜食甘薯经济性状和品质的影响. 安徽农学通报. 2023(20): 21-24 .
11.	赵俊梅，王学清，韩美坤，胡亚亚，高志远，焦伟静，刘兰服，辛国胜，杨雪，马志民，牟德华. 不同类型甘薯最佳烹饪方式评价. 中国粮油学报. 2022(08): 102-110 .
12.	张玉涵，蒋云聪，魏占姣，张晶晶，齐立军. 基于超快速气相电子鼻构建不同品种花椒和花椒提取物指纹图谱库及应用研究. 中国食品添加剂. 2022(09): 226-233 .
13.	洪蕴恒，宋聚红，梁丽鹏，付雅丽，王海山. 影响甘薯食用品质因素分析. 蔬菜. 2022(11): 40-43 .
14.	沈升法，项超，吴列洪，季志仙. 迷你甘薯‘心香’的品质研究和育种利用进展. 分子植物育种. 2022(21): 7249-7258 .
15.	赵思颖，李璐，刘小茜，赵钢军，吴海滨，罗剑宁，龚浩，郑晓明，李俊星. 基于感官品质、质构特征及理化成分分析的中国南瓜果实感官综合评价预测模型. 食品科学. 2022(23): 63-71 .
16.	陈龙，史春余，孟迪，许燕，柳洪鹃. 硫酸钾对甘薯块根烤后口感品质的影响. 中国粮油学报. 2021(07): 40-46 .
17.	张玉涵，李腾飞，魏占姣，齐立军，高伟. 基于超快速气相电子鼻构建不同产地胡椒及胡椒提取物指纹图谱库及应用研究. 中国食品添加剂. 2021(09): 97-104 .
18.	赵俊梅，高小宽，胡亚亚，韩美坤，马志民，牟德华. 不同品种鲜食型甘薯烘烤后品质的研究. 食品研究与开发. 2021(20): 1-7 .
19.	项伟，许健，董芳，张道微，黄艳岚，张亚，张超凡. 基于模糊数学的甘薯食用品质感官评价模型. 植物遗传资源学报. 2021(06): 1624-1634 .
20.	贾赵东，马佩勇，边小峰，禹阳，张铅，刘帅，谢一芝. 鲜食甘薯食用品质感官评价技术规程. 江苏农业科学. 2021(23): 185-189 .