4.6 Article

Characterization of fish-skin gelatin gels and films containing the antimicrobial enzyme lysozyme

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE
卷 71, 期 5, 页码 M141-M145

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00031.x

关键词

antimicrobial edible films; fish; gelatin; gels; lysozyme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fish skins are rich in collagen and can be used to produce food-grade gelatin. Films cast from fish-skin gelatins are stable at room temperature and can act as a barrier when applied to foods. Lysozyme is a foodsafe, antimicrobial enzyme that can also produce gels and films. When cold-water, fish-skin gelatin is enhanced with lysozyme, the resulting film has antimicrobial properties. The objective of this study was to characterize the effect on strength and barrier properties of lysozyme-enhanced fish-skin gelatin gels and films, and evaluate their activity against potential spoilage bacteria. Solutions containing 6.67% fish-skin gelatin were formulated to contain varying levels of hen-egg-white lysozyme. Gels were evaluated for strength, clarity, and viscoelastic properties. Films were evaluated for water activity, water vapor permeability, and antimicrobial barrier capabilities. Fish-skin gels containing 0.1% and 0.01% lysozyme had pH (4.8) and gelling-temperatures (2.1 degrees C) similar to lysozyme-free fish-skin gelatin controls. However, gel strength decreased (up to 20%). Turbidities of gels, with or without lysozyme, were comparable at all concentrations. Films cast with gelatin containing lysozyme demonstrated similar water vapor permeabilities and water activities. Lysozyme was still detectable in most fish gelatin films. More antimicrobial activity was retained in films cast with higher lysozyme concentrations and in films where lysozyme was added after the gelatin had been initially heated. These results suggest that fish-skin gelatin gels and films, when formulated with lysozyme, may provide a unique, functional barrier to increase the shelf life of food products.

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

4.6
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