4.7 Article

Aroma-active compounds of wild rice (Zizania palustris L.)

期刊

FOOD RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 54, 期 2, 页码 1463-1470

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2013.09.042

关键词

Wild rice; Zizania; GC-MS; GC-O; Descriptive sensory analysis; Pyrazines; Alkylpyrazines; Nutty; Roasted; Wild rice fermentation; Wild rice parching

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wild rice (Zizania palustris L.), an aquatic cereal grain, is gaining in popularity among consumers due to its unique nutty, roasted flavor. This study assessed the volatile chemistry of cooked wild rice to determine the odor-active compounds using a dynamic headspace system with Tenax trap, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), GC-olfactometry (GC-O), and descriptive sensory analysis. Traditional brown rice (Oryza saliva L) was used to contrast with wild rice. Seventy-one volatile compounds were identified by GC-MS; six accounted for 50.2% of the total relative concentration of volatiles. A complex mixture of 33 odor-active compounds was identified by GC-O with nutty and roasted being the dominant aroma notes. Primary contributors to the unique nutty, roasted aroma were benzaldehyde, 2-n-butylfuran, 2,3-dimethylpyrazine, 2,5-dimethylpyrazine, 2-ethyl-6-methylpyrazine, 3-ethyl-2,5-dimethylpyrazine, furfural, methylpyrazine, and 2-pentylfuran. Descriptive sensory analysis illustrated the distinct aroma differences between brown and wild rice in that brown rice was primarily described as having 'cooked-rice' and 'buttery' aroma attributes and wild rice as 'nutty', 'smoky', 'hay-like', 'earthy', and 'green'. The fermentation and parching steps in the processing of wild rice appear to create the unique nutty, roasted aroma of cooked wild rice. The data provide the foundation upon which wild rice product chemistry and consumer preference can be integrated and used to optimize critical processing steps and select for progeny with superior flavor in wild rice breeding programs. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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