4.6 Article

Effect of gamma-irradiation on color, pungency, and volatiles of Korean red pepper powder

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE
卷 69, 期 8, 页码 C585-C592

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2004.tb09904.x

关键词

capsanoids; capsanthin; electronic nose; red pepper powder; gamma-irradiation; SPME

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effect of gamma-irradiation on color, pungency, and volatiles of Korean red pepper powder (Capsicum annuum L.) was investigated. Red pepper powder, vacuum-packaged in a polyethylene/polypropylene bag, was gamma-irradiated up to 7 kGy. An irradiation dose of 7 kGy reduced the population of mesophilic bacteria and fungi effectively without affecting major quality factors. Pungency of irradiated red pepper powder was not changed based on the amount of capsanolds by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and the Scoville sensory score. The red color of irradiated pepper powder was not significantly different from that of the control, judged from the capsanthin content by HPLC and color assessment using spectrophotpmetric (American Spice Trade Assn. units) and colorimetric measurements (Hunter a values). Further, the sensory evaluation showed no significant difference in pungent odor and off-odor between nonirradiated control and irradiated red pepper powder. However, when headspace volatiles of gamma-irradiated red pepper powder were evaluated by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry with solid-phase microextraction and electronic nose with metal oxide sensors, the profiles of odor were classified into irradiated dose levels of 0, 3, 5, and 7 kGy by principal component analysis and multivariate analysis of variance. Such a difference of odor might result from the disappearance of some volatiles, such as hexanoic acid and tetramethyl-pyrazine, and the appearance of 1,3-di-tert-butylbenzene during irradiation. Moreover, it appears that the irradiation of packaging material induced a formation of 1,3-di-tert-butylbenzene, which migrated into the red pepper powder.

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