4.7 Article

Analysis of aroma-active compounds in four Chinese dry-cured hams based on GC-O combined with AEDA and frequency detection methods

期刊

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 153, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2021.112497

关键词

Dry-cured ham; Aroma extract dilution analysis; Frequency detection; Aroma-active compounds; Gas chromatography-olfactometry

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31901816]
  2. Open Project Program of State Key Laboratory of Food Nutrition and Safety, Tianjin University of Science and Technology [SKLFNS-KF-201801]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study characterized the volatile compounds of four Yunnan dry-cured hams using MMSE and GC-MS, identifying aldehydes and alkanes as the most abundant components. PCA revealed potential dominant compounds, while GC-O analysis showed key aroma-active compounds in Yunnan dry-cured hams.
Chinese dry-cured hams have become increasingly appreciated by consumers because of their unique flavor characteristics. In this study, the volatile compounds of four Yunnan dry-cured hams (Xuanwei, Nuodeng, Sanchuan, and Saba) were characterized by monolithic material sorptive extraction (MMSE) and GC-MS. A total of 66 volatile compounds were identified, of which aldehydes and alkanes were the most abundant (>76.43%) in all four hams. The PCA result with 71.04% of the variability demonstrated the potential dominant compounds for the different dry-cured hams. The similarities and differences of aroma-active compounds among the different Yunnan dry-cured hams were studied by using gas chromatography-olfactometry (GC-O) combined with aroma extract dilution analysis (AEDA) and frequency detection (FD) methods. The results demonstrated that 3-methylbutanal, hexanal, 2,6-dimethylpyrazine, 1-octen-3-ol, dimethyl trisulfide, and nonanal were the most important aroma-active compounds in the Yunnan dry-cured hams. This study contributes to a better understanding of odor quality in Chinese dry-cured hams.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据