4.7 Article

Edible Pleurotus eryngii Papery Food Prepared by Papermaking Process

期刊

FOODS
卷 11, 期 21, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods11213514

关键词

mycelium; papery food; papermaking process; Pleurotus eryngii

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2021YFD1600403]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31901795]
  3. Key R&D Program of Shaanxi, China [2021NY-157, 2021NY-185]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the feasibility of preparing papery food using Pleurotus eryngii as a raw material through the papermaking process. The results showed that PSP and PMP were more popular among consumers in terms of formability, mouth feel, and overall palatability, with PSP also exhibiting better moisture resistance and thermal decomposition performance.
The objective of the current study was to evaluate the feasibility of papery food with Pleurotus eryngii (P. eryngii) as a raw material using the papermaking process. The physical, chemical, structural, and thermal degradation properties were studied as well as the sensory evaluation of the papery food from P. eryngii mycelia (PMP), stems (PSP), caps (PCP), and whole fruiting bodies (PEP). The results indicated that the colors from PSP, PCP, and PEP were clearly different from PMP. Thicker PSP and PMP had a smoother surface and better crispness compared to PCP. Moreover, PSP had better moisture resistance and thermal decomposition performance compared to the other groups. Nutritional composition and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy suggested abundant polysaccharide and protein content in all of the papery food. Finally, sensory evaluation showed that the formability, mouth feel, and overall palatability of PSP and PMP were more popular among consumers. Overall, this study provides a novel method for the preparation of papery food and provides a potential new mechanism for the further development and utilization of the fruiting bodies and mycelium of P. eryngii.

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