不同贮藏温度下印度块菌净菜品质变化及其货架期研究

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20221658

浙江农业学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (11): 2698-2709.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20221658

不同贮藏温度下印度块菌净菜品质变化及其货架期研究

清源¹(), 方志荣¹, 姚昕¹, 尹胜²

1.西昌学院攀西特色作物研究与利用四川省重点实验室,四川西昌 615013
2.会东高川天源农业科技有限公司,四川会东615200

收稿日期:2022-11-20 出版日期:2023-11-25 发布日期:2023-12-04
作者简介:清源(1983—),女,河北张家口人,博士,教授,研究方向为食用菌加工与保鲜。E-mail: 64899867@qq.com
基金资助:
四川省自然科学基金(2022NSFSC1712);攀西特色作物研究与利用四川省重点实验室项目(XNFZ2111);凉山州学术和技术带头人培养资金(ZRS202013)

Study on quality changes and shelf life of purified-truffle storage at different temperatures

QING Yuan¹(), FANG Zhirong¹, YAO Xin¹, YIN Sheng²

1. Panxi Crops Research and Utilization Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Xichang University, Xichang 615013, Sichuan, China
2. Huidong Gaochuan Tianyuan Agricultural Technology Co. Ltd., Huidong 615200, Sichuan, China

Received:2022-11-20 Online:2023-11-25 Published:2023-12-04

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以国产印度块菌为材料,研究不同贮藏温度下失重率、腐败率、硬度、呼吸强度、可溶性蛋白含量、多酚氧化酶(PPO)活性、菌落总数和感官评价的变化,并构建货架期预测模型。结果表明,随着贮藏时间的延长,低温贮藏能有效降低印度块菌净菜的失重率、腐败率和呼吸强度,抑制蛋白质降解和多酚氧化酶(PPO)活性的增加,较好地维持贮藏期间的硬度,降低其表面微生物的生长繁殖速度。Pearson相关分析结果表明,失重率、腐败率、PPO活性和可溶性蛋白含量为块菌净菜品质变化的关键性因子。动力学分析结合Arrhenius 方程结果表明,PPO活性拟合的货架期预测模型精度更高,决定系数R²>0.90。经模型验证实验发现,实测值与预测值的相对误差均低于11.05%,可有效预测(-3±1)~(16±1) ℃贮藏时的块菌净菜货架期。

关键词: 印度块菌, 贮藏温度, 品质, 货架期

Abstract:

Tuber indicum (truffle) was used as the material to investigate the effects of different storage temperatures on weight loss, decay rate, firmness, respiratory intensity, soluble protein content, polyphenol oxidase (PPO) activity, total number of colonies and sensory evaluation. Also, the shelf life prediction model was further established. Results showed that, with prolonged storage time, low temperature was beneficial to decrease the weight loss, decay rate and respiratory intensity, inhibit the decrease of soluble protein content and PPO activity, maintain the firmness and reduce the reproduction speed of bacterial colonies. Pearson correlation analysis demonstrated that weight loss, decay rate, PPO activity and soluble protein content were the key factors for the quality changes of purified-truffle. The results of dynamic analysis combined with Arrhenius equation showed that the fitting precision of PPO activity values was higher, and the shelf life model established with PPO activity was more accurate and the determination R² was over 0.90. According to the model validation results, the relative error between the measured value and the predicted value was less than 11.05%, which could effectively predict the shelf life within the temperature range of (-3±1)~(16±1) ℃.

Key words: Tuber indicum, storage temperature, quality, shelf life

中图分类号:

TS205

清源, 方志荣, 姚昕, 尹胜. 不同贮藏温度下印度块菌净菜品质变化及其货架期研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(11): 2698-2709.

QING Yuan, FANG Zhirong, YAO Xin, YIN Sheng. Study on quality changes and shelf life of purified-truffle storage at different temperatures[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2023, 35(11): 2698-2709.

图/表 14

参考文献 27

[1]	清源, 周洁, 尹胜, 等. 块菌天然复配保鲜剂的配方优化及货架期预测[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2020, 46(1): 191-196.
	QING Y, ZHOU J, YIN S, et al. Formulation optimization and shelf life prediction of truffles with natural preservative[J]. Food and Fermentation Industries, 2020, 46(1): 191-196. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[2]	呼鑫荣, 熊海宽, 薛文通. 松露的组成成分及功能活性研究进展[J]. 食品工业科技, 2017, 38(22): 341-345, 352.
	HU X R, XIONG H K, XUE W T. Research progress on the composition and functional activity of truffles[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2017, 38(22): 341-345, 352. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[3]	TORREGIANI E, LORIER S, SAGRATINI G, et al. Comparative analysis of the volatile profile of 20 commercial samples of truffles, truffle sauces, and truffle-flavored oils by using HS-SPME-GC-MS[J]. Food Analytical Methods, 2017, 10(6): 1857-1869.
[4]	SAVINI S, LONGO E, SERVILI A, et al. Hypobaric packaging prolongs the shelf life of refrigerated black truffles (Tuber melanosporum)[J]. Molecules, 2020, 25(17): 3837.
[5]	李少华, 熊海宽, 薛文通, 等. 云南楚雄松露的采后贮藏保鲜品质研究初探[C]// 第八届云南省科协学术年会论文集——专题六: 工业与信息科技. 楚雄彝族自治州, 2018: 212-222.
[6]	黎琦, 邹璐潞, 马沁沁, 等. 酒精浸泡冷藏鲜印度块菌货架期评估、挥发性物质与细菌群落变化及其相关性[J]. 食品科学, 2023, 44(1): 199-208.
	LI Q, ZOU L L, MA Q Q, et al. Shelf life evaluation and correlation between changes in volatile compounds and bacterial communities in fresh Tuber indicum treated with alcohol during cold storage[J]. Food Science, 2023, 44(1): 199-208. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[7]	李亚玲, 崔宽波, 石玲, 等. 近冰温贮藏对杏果实冷害及活性氧代谢的影响[J]. 食品科学, 2020, 41(7): 177-183.
	LI Y L, CUI K B, SHI L, et al. Effect of near freezing temperature storage on chilling injury and active oxygen metabolism of apricot fruit[J]. Food Science, 2020, 41(7): 177-183. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[8]	刘娟, 吴伟杰, 郜海燕, 等. 贮藏温度对鲜切火龙果品质及微生物的影响[J]. 中国食品学报, 2017, 17(10): 168-175.
	LIU J, WU W J, GAO H Y, et al. Effects of different storage temperatures on quality and microorganism of fresh-cut pitaya[J]. Journal of Chinese Institute of Food Science and Technology, 2017, 17(10): 168-175. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[9]	顾思彤, 姜爱丽, 李宪民, 等. 不同贮藏温度对软枣猕猴桃采后生理品质及抗氧化性的影响[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2019, 45(13): 178-184.
	GU S T, JIANG A L, LI X M, et al. Effects of different storage temperatures on postharvest physiological quality and antioxidative capacity of Actinidia arguta[J]. Food and Fermentation Industries, 2019, 45(13): 178-184. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[10]	唐平, 柳成益, 杨梅, 等. 印度块菌冷库保鲜技术研究[J]. 食用菌, 2014, 36(3): 70-72.
	TANG P, LIU C Y, YANG M, et al. Study on fresh-keeping technology of Indian truffle cold storage[J]. Edible Fungi, 2014, 36(3): 70-72. (in Chinese)
[11]	王海丹, 普红梅, 杨芳, 等. 不同贮藏温度下油麦菜品质变化及其货架期预测[J]. 食品研究与开发, 2022, 43(15): 38-47.
	WANG H D, PU H M, YANG F, et al. Quality changes and predictive modeling of shelf life of Lactuca sativa stored at different temperatures[J]. Food Research and Development, 2022, 43(15): 38-47. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[12]	蒋方国, 胡海洋, 龚晓源, 等. O₂/CO₂主动自发气调对采后松露贮藏品质及微观结构的影响[J]. 食品与机械, 2022, 38(2): 123-129.
	JIANG F G, HU H Y, GONG X Y, et al. Effects of O₂/CO₂active modified atmosphere packaging on storage quality and microstructure of postharvest truffles[J]. Food & Machinery, 2022, 38(2): 123-129. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[13]	姚昕, 秦文. ε-聚赖氨酸和臭氧处理对石榴果实贮藏品质影响的多变量分析[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2017, 43(8): 254-261.
	YAO X, QIN W. Multivariate analysis of the influence of ε-polylysine and ozone treatment on the quality of pomegranate during storage[J]. Food and Fermentation Industries, 2017, 43(8): 254-261. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[14]	王莉梅, 陆浩, 张靳, 等. PBAT/PLLA薄膜对白鳞蘑菇的保鲜效果[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2022, 48(5): 219-226.
	WANG L M, LU H, ZHANG J, et al. Preservation effect of PBAT/PLLA film on Agaricus bernardii[J]. Food and Fermentation Industries, 2022, 48(5): 219-226. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[15]	曹建康, 姜微波, 赵玉梅. 果蔬采后生理生化实验指导[M]. 北京: 中国轻工业出版社, 2007.
[16]	TAO F, CHEN W W, JIA Z B. Effect of simulated transport vibration on the quality of shiitake mushroom (Lentinus edodes) during storage[J]. Food Science & Nutrition, 2020, 9(2): 1152-1159.
[17]	ROKAYYA S, KHOJAH E, ELHAKEM A, et al. Investigating the nano-films effect on physical, mechanical properties, chemical changes, and microbial load contamination of white button mushrooms during storage[J]. Coatings, 2021, 11(1): 44.
[18]	纪海鹏, 高聪聪, 董成虎, 等. 不同保鲜剂处理对圆青椒贮藏品质的影响[J]. 包装工程, 2019, 40(19): 34-40.
	JI H P, GAO C C, DONG C H, et al. Effects of different preservatives on storage quality of round green pepper[J]. Packaging Engineering, 2019, 40(19): 34-40. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[19]	田平平, 王杰, 秦晓艺, 等. 采后处理对杏鲍菇贮藏品质及抗氧化酶系统的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2015, 48(5): 941-951.
	TIAN P P, WANG J, QIN X Y, et al. Effect of postharvest treatment on the storage quality and antioxidant enzyme system of Pleurotus eryngii[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2015, 48(5): 941-951. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[20]	BELAY Z A, CALEB O J, OPARA U L. Enzyme kinetics modelling approach to evaluate the impact of high CO₂and super-atmospheric O₂concentrations on respiration rate of pomegranate arils[J]. CyTA-Journal of Food, 2017, 15(4): 608-616.
[21]	MARINGGAL B, HASHIM N, MOHAMED AMIN TAWAKKAL I S, et al. Effect of Kelulut honey nanoparticles coating on the changes of respiration rate, ascorbic acid, and total phenolic content of papaya (Carica papaya L.) during cold storage[J]. Foods, 2021, 10(2): 432.
[22]	邰晓亮. 不同贮藏条件对蟠桃采后生理及贮藏效果影响的研究[D]. 石河子: 石河子大学, 2010.
	TAI X L. The effect of different storage conditions on postharvest physiology and storage of peaches study[D]. Shihezi: Shihezi University, 2010. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[23]	谢丽源, 郑林用, 甘炳成, 等. 贮藏温度对采后杏鲍菇生理特性的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2016, 29(1): 153-158.
	XIE L Y, ZHENG L Y, GAN B C, et al. Effect of different storage temperatures on physiological property of Pleurotus eryngii[J]. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 29(1): 153-158. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[24]	LIU K D, YUAN C C, CHEN Y, et al. Combined effects of ascorbic acid and chitosan on the quality maintenance and shelf life of plums[J]. Scientia Horticulturae, 2014, 176: 45-53.
[25]	RIVERA C S, BLANCO D, SALVADOR M L, et al. Shelf-life extension of fresh Tuber aestivum and Tuber melanosporum truffles by modified atmosphere packaging with microperforated films[J]. Journal of Food Science, 2010, 75(4): E225-E233.
[26]	陈慧芝. 基于智能包装标签的典型生鲜配菜新鲜度无损检测的研究[D]. 无锡: 江南大学, 2019.
	CHEN H Z. Development of intelligent packaging labels for non-destructively monitoring freshness of typical prepared fresh foods[D]. Wuxi: Jiangnan University, 2019. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[27]	刘丽荣, 柴春祥, 鲁晓翔. 鲤鱼低温贮藏过程中质构参数变化及其与鲜度的关系[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2015, 27(12): 2193-2198.
	LIU L R, CHAI C X, LU X X. The changes of texture in Cyprinidae at low temperature storage and its relationship with freshness[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2015, 27(12): 2193-2198. (in Chinese with English abstract)

评价指标	0~3	3.1~5.0	5.1~8.0	8.1~10
Indicator
气味 Odor	完全腐烂气味 Completely rotten odor	腐烂气味较明显 The smell of decay is more pronounced	块菌香气淡,轻微腐烂气味 The aroma of truffles is light, with a slight rotten odor	块菌香气突出,无腐烂气味 The aroma of truffles is prominent, without a rotten odor
组织状态 Texture	腐烂、无弹性 Rotten, inelastic	部分发霉,弹性较差 Partially moldy, poor elasticity	部分软化,弹性较好 Partially softened, with good elasticity	硬度高,弹性好 High firmness and good elasticity
可接受度 Acceptability	不能接受 Not acceptable	勉强接受 Grudging acceptable	可以接受 Acceptable	自然接受 Naturally acceptable

评价指标	0~3	3.1~5.0	5.1~8.0	8.1~10
Indicator
气味 Odor	完全腐烂气味 Completely rotten odor	腐烂气味较明显 The smell of decay is more pronounced	块菌香气淡,轻微腐烂气味 The aroma of truffles is light, with a slight rotten odor	块菌香气突出,无腐烂气味 The aroma of truffles is prominent, without a rotten odor
组织状态 Texture	腐烂、无弹性 Rotten, inelastic	部分发霉,弹性较差 Partially moldy, poor elasticity	部分软化,弹性较好 Partially softened, with good elasticity	硬度高,弹性好 High firmness and good elasticity
可接受度 Acceptability	不能接受 Not acceptable	勉强接受 Grudging acceptable	可以接受 Acceptable	自然接受 Naturally acceptable

温度 Temperature/ ℃	指标 Index	硬度 Hardness	失重率 Weight loss	腐败率 Decay rate		呼吸强度 Respiratory intensity		可溶性蛋白含量 Soluble protein content		PPO活性 PPO activity		菌落总数 Total number of colony	感官评分 Sensory score
-3±1	硬度Hardness	1.000	-0.902^**	-0.722^**		0.842^**		-0.657^*		-0.860^**		-0.747^**	0.904^**
	失重率Weight loss		1.000	0.815^**		-0.793^**		-0.614^*		0.955^**		0.832^**	-0.942^**
	腐败率Decay rate			1.000		-0.567^*		-0.531		0.832^**		0.588^*	-0.910^**
	呼吸强度					1.000		0.569^*		-0.763^**		-0.914^**	0.735^**
	Respiratory intensity
	可溶性蛋白含量							1.000		-0.568^**		-0.476	0.641^*
	Soluble protein content
	PPO活性PPO activity									1.000		-0.754^**	-0.935^**
	菌落总数Total number of colony											1.000	-0.701^**
	感官评分Sensory score												1.000
0±1	硬度Hardness	1.000	-0.396	-0.474		0.071		0.198		-0.300		-0.471	0.354
	失重率Weight loss		1.000	0.935^**		-0.654^*		-0.716^**		0.928^**		0.860^**	-0.949^**
	腐败率Decay rate			1.000		-0.632^*		-0.695^**		0.792^**		0.908^**	-0.962^**
	呼吸强度Respiratory intensity					1.000		0.414		-0.453		-0.422	0.674^**
	可溶性蛋白含量							1.000		-0.722^**		-0.673^**	0.752^**
	Soluble protein content
	PPO活性PPO activity									1.000		0.769^**	-0.816^**
	菌落总数Total number of colony											1.000	-0.876^**
	感官评分Sensory score												1.000
4±1	硬度Hardness	1.000	-0.772^**	-0.666^**		0.376		0.601^*		-0.605^*		-0.646^*	0.618
	失重率Weight loss		1.000	0.948^**		-0.683^**		0.883^**		0.902^**		0.918^**	-0.981^**
	腐败率Decay rate			1.000		-0.696^**		0.794^**		0.923^**		0.929^**	-0.937^**
	呼吸强度Respiratory intensity					1.000		-0.606^*		-0.617^*		-0.651^*	0.546
	可溶性蛋白含量							1.000		-0.806^**		-0.719^**	0.692^*
	PPO活性PPO activity									1.000		0.922^**	-0.743^*
	Soluble protein content
	菌落总数Total number of colony											1.000	-0.887^**
	感官评分Sensory score												1.000
8±1	硬度Hardness	1.000	-0.401	-0.424		0.374		0.412		-0.312		-0.379	0.130
	失重率Weight loss		1.000	0.980^**		-0.404		-0.938^**		0.976^**		0.975^**	-0.980^**
	腐败率Decay rate			1.000		-0.381		-0.931^**		0.938^**		0.963^**	-0.960^**
	呼吸强度Respiratory intensity					1.000		0.333		-0.319		-0.418	0.123
	可溶性蛋白含量							1.000		-0.914^**		-0.905^**	0.855^**
	Soluble protein content
	PPO活性PPO activity									1.000		0.936^**	-0.961^**
	菌落总数Total number of colony											1.000	-0.921^**
	感官评分Sensory score												1.000
12±1	硬度Hardness	1.000	-0.671^**	-0.753^**		0.250		0.599^*		-0.496		-0.508	-0.717^*
	失重率Weight loss		1.000	0.978^**		-0.392		-0.890^**		0.937^**		0.953^**	-0.978^**
	腐败率Decay rate			1.000		-0.398		-0.871^**		0.879^**		0.898^**	-0.977^**
	呼吸强度Respiratory intensity					1.000		0.221		-0.128		-0.300	-0.063
	可溶性蛋白含量							1.0000		-0.906^**		-0.860^**	0.869^**
	Soluble protein content
	PPO活性PPO activity									1.000		0.946^**	-0.916^**
	菌落总数Total number of colony											1.000	-0.920^**
	感官评分Sensory score												1.000
16±1	硬度Hardness	1.000	-0.800^**	-0.835^**		0.521		0.703^**		-0.444		-0.751^**	-0.588
	失重率Weight loss		1.000	0.985^**		-0.390		-0.943^**		0.850^**		0.955^**	-0.959^**
	腐败率Decay rate			1.000		-0.378		-0.950^**		0.796^**		0.918^**	-0.978^**
	呼吸强度Respiratory intensity				1.000		0.254		0.048		-0.451		-0.539
	可溶性蛋白含量						1.000		-0.860^**		-0.840^**		-0.867^*
	Soluble protein content
	PPO活性PPO activity								1.000		0.795^**		-0.876^**
	菌落总数Total number of colony										1.000		-0.809
	感官评分Sensory score												1.000

温度 Temperature/ ℃	指标 Index	硬度 Hardness	失重率 Weight loss	腐败率 Decay rate		呼吸强度 Respiratory intensity		可溶性蛋白含量 Soluble protein content		PPO活性 PPO activity		菌落总数 Total number of colony	感官评分 Sensory score
-3±1	硬度Hardness	1.000	-0.902^**	-0.722^**		0.842^**		-0.657^*		-0.860^**		-0.747^**	0.904^**
	失重率Weight loss		1.000	0.815^**		-0.793^**		-0.614^*		0.955^**		0.832^**	-0.942^**
	腐败率Decay rate			1.000		-0.567^*		-0.531		0.832^**		0.588^*	-0.910^**
	呼吸强度					1.000		0.569^*		-0.763^**		-0.914^**	0.735^**
	Respiratory intensity
	可溶性蛋白含量							1.000		-0.568^**		-0.476	0.641^*
	Soluble protein content
	PPO活性PPO activity									1.000		-0.754^**	-0.935^**
	菌落总数Total number of colony											1.000	-0.701^**
	感官评分Sensory score												1.000
0±1	硬度Hardness	1.000	-0.396	-0.474		0.071		0.198		-0.300		-0.471	0.354
	失重率Weight loss		1.000	0.935^**		-0.654^*		-0.716^**		0.928^**		0.860^**	-0.949^**
	腐败率Decay rate			1.000		-0.632^*		-0.695^**		0.792^**		0.908^**	-0.962^**
	呼吸强度Respiratory intensity					1.000		0.414		-0.453		-0.422	0.674^**
	可溶性蛋白含量							1.000		-0.722^**		-0.673^**	0.752^**
	Soluble protein content
	PPO活性PPO activity									1.000		0.769^**	-0.816^**
	菌落总数Total number of colony											1.000	-0.876^**
	感官评分Sensory score												1.000
4±1	硬度Hardness	1.000	-0.772^**	-0.666^**		0.376		0.601^*		-0.605^*		-0.646^*	0.618
	失重率Weight loss		1.000	0.948^**		-0.683^**		0.883^**		0.902^**		0.918^**	-0.981^**
	腐败率Decay rate			1.000		-0.696^**		0.794^**		0.923^**		0.929^**	-0.937^**
	呼吸强度Respiratory intensity					1.000		-0.606^*		-0.617^*		-0.651^*	0.546
	可溶性蛋白含量							1.000		-0.806^**		-0.719^**	0.692^*
	PPO活性PPO activity									1.000		0.922^**	-0.743^*
	Soluble protein content
	菌落总数Total number of colony											1.000	-0.887^**
	感官评分Sensory score												1.000
8±1	硬度Hardness	1.000	-0.401	-0.424		0.374		0.412		-0.312		-0.379	0.130
	失重率Weight loss		1.000	0.980^**		-0.404		-0.938^**		0.976^**		0.975^**	-0.980^**
	腐败率Decay rate			1.000		-0.381		-0.931^**		0.938^**		0.963^**	-0.960^**
	呼吸强度Respiratory intensity					1.000		0.333		-0.319		-0.418	0.123
	可溶性蛋白含量							1.000		-0.914^**		-0.905^**	0.855^**
	Soluble protein content
	PPO活性PPO activity									1.000		0.936^**	-0.961^**
	菌落总数Total number of colony											1.000	-0.921^**
	感官评分Sensory score												1.000
12±1	硬度Hardness	1.000	-0.671^**	-0.753^**		0.250		0.599^*		-0.496		-0.508	-0.717^*
	失重率Weight loss		1.000	0.978^**		-0.392		-0.890^**		0.937^**		0.953^**	-0.978^**
	腐败率Decay rate			1.000		-0.398		-0.871^**		0.879^**		0.898^**	-0.977^**
	呼吸强度Respiratory intensity					1.000		0.221		-0.128		-0.300	-0.063
	可溶性蛋白含量							1.0000		-0.906^**		-0.860^**	0.869^**
	Soluble protein content
	PPO活性PPO activity									1.000		0.946^**	-0.916^**
	菌落总数Total number of colony											1.000	-0.920^**
	感官评分Sensory score												1.000
16±1	硬度Hardness	1.000	-0.800^**	-0.835^**		0.521		0.703^**		-0.444		-0.751^**	-0.588
	失重率Weight loss		1.000	0.985^**		-0.390		-0.943^**		0.850^**		0.955^**	-0.959^**
	腐败率Decay rate			1.000		-0.378		-0.950^**		0.796^**		0.918^**	-0.978^**
	呼吸强度Respiratory intensity				1.000		0.254		0.048		-0.451		-0.539
	可溶性蛋白含量						1.000		-0.860^**		-0.840^**		-0.867^*
	Soluble protein content
	PPO活性PPO activity								1.000		0.795^**		-0.876^**
	菌落总数Total number of colony										1.000		-0.809
	感官评分Sensory score												1.000

指标 Index	温度 Temperature/℃	零级动力学Zero-order kinetics			一级动力学First order dynamics
指标 Index	温度 Temperature/℃	方程Equation	R²	∑ R²	方程Equation	R²	∑ R²
失重率	-3±1	Y=0.243t-0.729	0.944	5.816	—	—	—
Weight loss	0±1	Y=0.103t+0.006	0.957		—	—	—
	4±1	Y=0.297t-0.432	0.973		—	—	—
	8±1	Y=0.320t-0.170	0.989		—	—	—
	12±1	Y=0.357t-0.055	0.965		—	—	—
	16±1	Y=0.404t-0.044	0.988		—	—	—
腐败率	-3±1	Y=0.383t-2.580	0.663	5.378	—	—	—
Decay rate	0±1	Y=0.285t-0.887	0.907		—	—	—
	4±1	Y=0.476t-0.352	0.939		—	—	—
	8±1	Y=0.590t-0.778	0.954		—	—	—
	12±1	Y=1.469t-4.332	0.937		—	—	—
	16±1	Y=2.328t-4.320	0.978		—	—	—
PPO活性	-3±1	Y=0.227t+5.625	0.930	5.233	Y=5.899e^0.026^t	0.930	4.709
PPO activity	0±1	Y=0.233t+7.018	0.809		Y=6.985e^0.025^t	0.765
	4±1	Y=0.410t+7.477	0.900		Y=7.641e^0.034^t	0.813
	8±1	Y=0.534t+7.559	0.954		Y=7.841e^0.040^t	0.848
	12±1	Y=0.634t+9.212	0.899		Y=8.993e^0.043^t	0.760
	16±1	Y=0.620t+12.578	0.741		Y=10.844e^0.040^t	0.593
可溶性蛋白含量	-3±1	Y=-0.116 t+20.71	0.442	4.566	Y=5.223e^0.008^t	0.621	5.011
Soluble protein	0±1	Y=-0.157 t+20.351	0.618		Y=5.458e^0.006^t	0.795
content	4±1	Y=0.254 t+20.731	0.765		Y=5.690e^0.006^t	0.880
	8±1	Y=-0.436 t+21.074	0.914		Y=5.590e^-0.010^t	0.935
	12±1	Y=-0.507 t+20.290	0.895		Y=5.830e^0.010^t	0.894
	16±1	Y=-0.576 t+20.178	0.932		Y=5.866e^0.01^t	0.886

不同贮藏温度下印度块菌净菜品质变化及其货架期研究

Study on quality changes and shelf life of purified-truffle storage at different temperatures

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 14

参考文献 27

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

指标 Index	回归方程 Regression equation	R²
失重率Weight loss	Y=0.181 3x-1.964 1	0.473 1
腐败率Decay rate	Y=0.404 5x-1.791 7	0.857 2
PPO活性PPO activity	Y=-4.811 7x+16.337	0.900 9
可溶性蛋白含量	Y=-0.255 9x+2.350 5	0.479 8
Soluble protein content

贮藏温度 Temperature/ ℃	货架期预测值 Predicted shelf life value/d	货架期实测值 Measured shelf life value/d	相对误差 Relative error/%
-3±1	62.59	57	9.81
0±1	51.15	50	2.30
4±1	39.86	36	10.72
8±1	31.02	29	6.97
12±1	24.43	22	11.05
16±1	19.41	18	7.83

[1]	岳宗伟, 李嘉骁, 孙向阳, 刘国梁, 李素艳, 王晨晨, 查贵超, 魏宁娴. 化肥有机肥配施对土壤性质、樱桃果实品质和产量的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(9): 2192-2201.
[2]	王诗瑶, 辛镇忠, 王连, 王愈. beta@壳聚糖保鲜涂层的制备及其对太谷梨枣品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(9): 2212-2221.
[3]	张博, 刘泽慈, 汪洁, 李兆壮, 李录山, 胡琳莉, 郁继华. 不同农业废弃物肥料化配方对露地甘蓝生长、产量及品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(8): 1782-1792.
[4]	张宁, 陶荣浩, 刘佩诗, 胡含秀, 高琳琳, 郭龙, 祝尊友, 马友华. 不同种类有机肥配施化肥对茶叶生长、品质和土壤肥力的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(8): 1844-1852.
[5]	王迪, 杨汉梅, 李阳倩, 贾梦婷, 邹亮, 杨帆. 苦荞麦“品、质、效、用”的多维评价及其活性成分高值化利用的研究进展[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(8): 1960-1974.
[6]	田玉刚, 万素梅, 林皎, 陈国栋, 李浩, 胡宇凯, 李燕芳, 胡守林, 毛廷勇, 赵书珍. 不同地膜类型与灌溉量对棉花光合参数和产量、品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(7): 1523-1531.
[7]	卜远鹏, 刘娜, 张古文, 冯志娟, 王斌, 龚亚明, 许林英. 菜用大豆种质资源的农艺性状多样性评价及核心种质与食味品质评价体系的构建[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(6): 1307-1314.
[8]	柴冠群, 周玮, 梁红, 范菲菲, 朱大雁, 范成五. 叶面喷施锌肥和柠檬酸对辣椒产量、品质与Cd吸收转运的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(5): 1069-1079.
[9]	肖立涵, 辛美果, 卢文静, 叶沁, 张岑, 肖朝耿, 谌迪. 不同贮藏条件对3种花粉源蜂王浆品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(5): 1161-1167.
[10]	马义虎, 曾孝元, 何贤彪, 周奶弟, 陈剑. 浙东南地区优质稻产量与品质对不同播期气候因子的响应[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(4): 736-751.
[11]	王金凤, 周琦, 吕玉龙, 陈卓梅. 间作景观树种对茶园生态系统与茶叶生产的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(3): 523-533.
[12]	王龙威, 白俊艳, 贾小平, 雷莹, 陈梦柯, 樊红灯, 卢小宁, 何豫涵, 曾凡林, 张容恺. 鹌鹑GnRH-1基因多态性与蛋品质的关联分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(3): 565-574.
[13]	黄秋伟, 毛立彦, 檀小辉, 王丽萍, 刘功德, 彭继飞, 龙凌云. 贮藏温度对广西旱藕采后重要品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(2): 346-354.
[14]	唐文静, 龚荣高, 初元琦, 陈超群, 陈红旭, 冉茂升, 张瑶, 杨文龙. 不同遮光率对甜樱桃果实品质和光合特性的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(10): 2346-2353.
[15]	刘贵阁, 乔勇进, 陈冰洁, 王晓, 张怡, 钟耀广. 不同干燥方式对黄桃果粉品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(10): 2456-2464.