浙江农业学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (6): 1126-1140.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20260104
钟杭宇1,2(
), 卢文静2, 谌迪2, 张岑2, 王怡然2, 何健兰3, 黄玉克4, 许光治1,*(
), 肖朝耿2,*(
)
收稿日期:2025-02-10
出版日期:2026-06-25
发布日期:2026-07-14
作者简介:钟杭宇,研究方向为食品加工与安全。E-mail:354311612@qq.com
通讯作者:
*许光治,E-mail:guangzhi@zafu.edu.cn;肖朝耿,E-mail:xiaochaogeng@163.com
基金资助:
ZHONG Hangyu1,2(
), LU Wenjing2, CHEN Di2, ZHANG Cen2, WANG Yiran2, HE Jianlan3, HUANG Yuke4, XU Guangzhi1,*(
), XIAO Chaogeng2,*(
)
Received:2025-02-10
Published:2026-06-25
Online:2026-07-14
摘要:
为筛选适用于牛肉的天然抗氧化剂并优化其应用工艺,明确天然抗氧化剂对牛肉抗氧化能力和风味的影响,以8种香辛料提取物为研究对象,以1,1-二苯基-2-三硝基苯肼(DPPH)自由基清除率、2,2'-联氮双(3-乙基苯并噻唑啉-6-磺酸)(ABTS)自由基清除率、色差和硫代巴比妥酸反应物(thiobarbituric acid reactive substances, TBARS)值为评价指标,筛选抗氧化效果最佳的香辛料提取物;以TBARS值、红度(a*)和总巯基含量为指标,通过单因素实验结合响应面法,优化该提取物处理牛肉的质量分数、处理时间与液料比,并分析最优工艺条件下提取物处理前后牛肉挥发性成分的变化。结果表明,8种香辛料提取物中,百里香提取物的抗氧化效果最优;经响应面法优化得到百里香提取物处理牛肉的最佳工艺条件为质量分数0.15%、处理时间30 min、液料比3∶1(mg·L-1)。该工艺条件可显著抑制牛肉的脂肪和蛋白质氧化,降低TBARS值,维持较高的红度和总巯基含量;挥发性成分分析显示,百里香提取物处理可减少牛肉氧化异味成分的生成,同时保留其醛类、酯类等特征风味成分,提升产品风味品质。本研究为百里香提取物在牛肉天然保鲜与品质提升中的应用提供了理论依据与技术支撑。
中图分类号:
钟杭宇, 卢文静, 谌迪, 张岑, 王怡然, 何健兰, 黄玉克, 许光治, 肖朝耿. 百里香提取物对牛肉抗氧化能力与风味的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(6): 1126-1140.
ZHONG Hangyu, LU Wenjing, CHEN Di, ZHANG Cen, WANG Yiran, HE Jianlan, HUANG Yuke, XU Guangzhi, XIAO Chaogeng. Effects of thyme extract on antioxidant capacity and flavor of beef[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2026, 38(6): 1126-1140.
| 水平 Level | 因素Factor | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| (A)提取物质 量分数/% Mass fraction of extract/% | (B)处理 时间/min Treatment time/min | (C)液料比/ (mL·g-1) Liquid-to-solid ratio/(mL·g-1) | |
| -1 | 0.10 | 20 | 2∶1 |
| 0 | 0.15 | 30 | 3∶1 |
| 1 | 0.20 | 40 | 4∶1 |
表1 响应面实验因素与水平
Table 1 Factors and levels for response surface experiments
| 水平 Level | 因素Factor | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| (A)提取物质 量分数/% Mass fraction of extract/% | (B)处理 时间/min Treatment time/min | (C)液料比/ (mL·g-1) Liquid-to-solid ratio/(mL·g-1) | |
| -1 | 0.10 | 20 | 2∶1 |
| 0 | 0.15 | 30 | 3∶1 |
| 1 | 0.20 | 40 | 4∶1 |
图1 不同香辛料提取物的DPPH自由基清除率(A)和ABTS自由基清除率(B) 相同颜色柱或点上无相同小写字母表示不同质量分数间差异显著(p<0.05)。
Fig.1 DPPH radical scavenging rate (A) and ABTS radical scavenging rate (B) of different spice extracts Bars or dots of the same color without the same lowercase letter indicate significant (p<0.05) differences among different concentrations.
| 处理 Processing conditions | L* | a* | b* |
|---|---|---|---|
| 纯水Distilled water | 33.43±1.02 d | 1.16±0.05 e | 6.94±0.23 a |
| 大蒜Allium sativum L. | 38.33±0.48 ab | 1.75±0.07 c | 6.27±0.43 ab |
| 茴香Foeniculum vulgare Mill. | 37.64±0.39 bc | 2.07±0.06 b | 5.17±0.42 cde |
| 肉桂Cinnamomum cassia Presl | 39.33±1.26 a | 1.81±0.11 bc | 5.69±0.11 bc |
| 丁香Syzygium aromaticum L. | 37.31±1.94 bc | 2.40±0.27 a | 5.73±0.69 bc |
| 草果Amomum tsao-ko Crevost & Lemaire | 36.19±0.68 c | 1.56±0.20 cd | 4.59±0.80 e |
| 黑胡椒Piper nigrum L. | 38.29±0.49 ab | 1.45±0.12 de | 5.45±0.28 cd |
| 百里香Thymus vulgaris L. | 36.49±0.68 c | 2.44±0.36 a | 4.94±0.35 de |
| 花椒Zanthoxylum bungeanum Maxim. | 37.71±0.43 bc | 1.22±0.05 e | 5.09±0.15 cde |
表2 不同香辛料提取物对牛肉色差的影响
Table 2 Effects of different spice extracts on the color difference of beef
| 处理 Processing conditions | L* | a* | b* |
|---|---|---|---|
| 纯水Distilled water | 33.43±1.02 d | 1.16±0.05 e | 6.94±0.23 a |
| 大蒜Allium sativum L. | 38.33±0.48 ab | 1.75±0.07 c | 6.27±0.43 ab |
| 茴香Foeniculum vulgare Mill. | 37.64±0.39 bc | 2.07±0.06 b | 5.17±0.42 cde |
| 肉桂Cinnamomum cassia Presl | 39.33±1.26 a | 1.81±0.11 bc | 5.69±0.11 bc |
| 丁香Syzygium aromaticum L. | 37.31±1.94 bc | 2.40±0.27 a | 5.73±0.69 bc |
| 草果Amomum tsao-ko Crevost & Lemaire | 36.19±0.68 c | 1.56±0.20 cd | 4.59±0.80 e |
| 黑胡椒Piper nigrum L. | 38.29±0.49 ab | 1.45±0.12 de | 5.45±0.28 cd |
| 百里香Thymus vulgaris L. | 36.49±0.68 c | 2.44±0.36 a | 4.94±0.35 de |
| 花椒Zanthoxylum bungeanum Maxim. | 37.71±0.43 bc | 1.22±0.05 e | 5.09±0.15 cde |
图2 不同香辛料提取物对牛肉TBARS值的影响 柱上无相同小写字母表示差异显著(p<0.05)。下同。
Fig.2 Effects of different spice extracts on TBARS values of beef Data marked without the same lowercase letter indicates significant difference(p<0.05). The same as below.
图3 百里香提取物质量分数对牛肉TBARS值、红绿色度(a*)和总巯基含量的影响
Fig.3 Effects of thyme extract mass fraction on TBARS value, redness-greenness (a*) and total sulfhydryl content of beef
| 序号 Number | A/% | B/min | C/(mL·g-1) | TBARS/(mg·kg-1) | a* | TSH/(nmol·mg-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.15 | 20 | 2∶1 | 1.62±0.08 bc | 4.37±0.02 bcde | 17.30±1.17 g |
| 2 | 0.15 | 20 | 4∶1 | 1.66±0.02 abc | 3.75±0.20 efg | 21.82±2.33 de |
| 3 | 0.10 | 30 | 4∶1 | 1.49±0.06 cd | 4.69±0.30 bc | 21.28±1.14 e |
| 4 | 0.15 | 30 | 3∶1 | 0.83±0.24 f | 6.98±0.58 a | 33.23±0.83 b |
| 5 | 0.15 | 30 | 3∶1 | 0.85±0.14 f | 6.68±0.75 a | 30.45±1.13 c |
| 6 | 0.20 | 30 | 2∶1 | 1.24±0.19 e | 3.27±0.32 g | 23.75±1.17 d |
| 7 | 0.15 | 30 | 3∶1 | 0.68±0.06 f | 6.81±0.12 a | 34.11±1.05 b |
| 8 | 0.15 | 40 | 2∶1 | 1.36±0.10 de | 3.95±0.22 defg | 17.77±0.91 fg |
| 9 | 0.15 | 40 | 4∶1 | 1.88±0.20 a | 4.56±0.38 bcd | 15.92±1.89 gh |
| 10 | 0.20 | 20 | 3∶1 | 1.56±0.02 bcd | 4.93±0.46 b | 19.67±1.42 ef |
| 11 | 0.10 | 30 | 2∶1 | 1.22±0.12 e | 3.85±0.45 efg | 18.99±2.68 f |
| 12 | 0.20 | 30 | 4∶1 | 1.24±0.16 e | 3.74±0.42 efg | 16.26±0.88 gh |
| 13 | 0.15 | 30 | 3∶1 | 0.82±0.18 f | 6.29±1.08 a | 36.97±0.99 a |
| 14 | 0.20 | 40 | 3∶1 | 1.67±0.28 abc | 3.47±0.48 fg | 14.63±1.50 h |
| 15 | 0.10 | 20 | 3∶1 | 1.73±0.18 ab | 4.00±0.14 cdef | 17.94±1.18 fg |
| 16 | 0.10 | 40 | 3∶1 | 1.54±0.02 bcd | 4.75±0.25 b | 18.05±1.05 fg |
| 17 | 0.15 | 30 | 3∶1 | 0.74±0.24 f | 6.39±0.41 a | 33.58±1.80 b |
表3 响应面实验结果
Table 3 Results of the response surface test
| 序号 Number | A/% | B/min | C/(mL·g-1) | TBARS/(mg·kg-1) | a* | TSH/(nmol·mg-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.15 | 20 | 2∶1 | 1.62±0.08 bc | 4.37±0.02 bcde | 17.30±1.17 g |
| 2 | 0.15 | 20 | 4∶1 | 1.66±0.02 abc | 3.75±0.20 efg | 21.82±2.33 de |
| 3 | 0.10 | 30 | 4∶1 | 1.49±0.06 cd | 4.69±0.30 bc | 21.28±1.14 e |
| 4 | 0.15 | 30 | 3∶1 | 0.83±0.24 f | 6.98±0.58 a | 33.23±0.83 b |
| 5 | 0.15 | 30 | 3∶1 | 0.85±0.14 f | 6.68±0.75 a | 30.45±1.13 c |
| 6 | 0.20 | 30 | 2∶1 | 1.24±0.19 e | 3.27±0.32 g | 23.75±1.17 d |
| 7 | 0.15 | 30 | 3∶1 | 0.68±0.06 f | 6.81±0.12 a | 34.11±1.05 b |
| 8 | 0.15 | 40 | 2∶1 | 1.36±0.10 de | 3.95±0.22 defg | 17.77±0.91 fg |
| 9 | 0.15 | 40 | 4∶1 | 1.88±0.20 a | 4.56±0.38 bcd | 15.92±1.89 gh |
| 10 | 0.20 | 20 | 3∶1 | 1.56±0.02 bcd | 4.93±0.46 b | 19.67±1.42 ef |
| 11 | 0.10 | 30 | 2∶1 | 1.22±0.12 e | 3.85±0.45 efg | 18.99±2.68 f |
| 12 | 0.20 | 30 | 4∶1 | 1.24±0.16 e | 3.74±0.42 efg | 16.26±0.88 gh |
| 13 | 0.15 | 30 | 3∶1 | 0.82±0.18 f | 6.29±1.08 a | 36.97±0.99 a |
| 14 | 0.20 | 40 | 3∶1 | 1.67±0.28 abc | 3.47±0.48 fg | 14.63±1.50 h |
| 15 | 0.10 | 20 | 3∶1 | 1.73±0.18 ab | 4.00±0.14 cdef | 17.94±1.18 fg |
| 16 | 0.10 | 40 | 3∶1 | 1.54±0.02 bcd | 4.75±0.25 b | 18.05±1.05 fg |
| 17 | 0.15 | 30 | 3∶1 | 0.74±0.24 f | 6.39±0.41 a | 33.58±1.80 b |
| 来源 Source | F值F value | p值p value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TBARS | a* | TSH | TBARS | a* | TSH | |
| 模型Model | 51.89 | 22.28 | 22.76 | <0.000 1 | 0.000 2 | 0.000 2 |
| A | 1.78 | 3.54 | 0.11 | 0.223 4 | 0.102 0 | 0.747 6 |
| B | 0.35 | 0.10 | 3.16 | 0.571 4 | 0.758 1 | 0.118 5 |
| C | 16.86 | 1.69 | 0.18 | 0.004 5 | 0.234 5 | 0.677 1 |
| AB | 4.41 | 9.78 | 1.56 | 0.074 0 | 0.016 7 | 0.251 3 |
| AC | 3.57 | 0.27 | 5.64 | 0.100 8 | 0.616 7 | 0.049 3 |
| BC | 11.28 | 3.03 | 2.39 | 0.012 1 | 0.125 3 | 0.165 9 |
| A2 | 53.30 | 57.56 | 50.25 | 0.000 2 | 0.000 1 | 0.000 2 |
| B2 | 283.87 | 36.22 | 80.10 | <0.000 1 | 0.000 5 | <0.000 1 |
| C2 | 55.42 | 69.59 | 41.75 | 0.000 1 | <0.000 1 | 0.000 3 |
| 失拟项Lack of fit | 0.99 | 2.19 | 0.49 | |||
| 回归系数R2 | 0.985 2 | 0.966 3 | 0.967 0 | |||
| 调整后的回归系数 | 0.966 2 | 0.922 8 | 0.924 5 | |||
| 变异系数/% CV/% | 5.49 | 7.28 | 8.94 | |||
表4 回归模型方差分析
Table 4 Analysis of variance of the regression model
| 来源 Source | F值F value | p值p value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TBARS | a* | TSH | TBARS | a* | TSH | |
| 模型Model | 51.89 | 22.28 | 22.76 | <0.000 1 | 0.000 2 | 0.000 2 |
| A | 1.78 | 3.54 | 0.11 | 0.223 4 | 0.102 0 | 0.747 6 |
| B | 0.35 | 0.10 | 3.16 | 0.571 4 | 0.758 1 | 0.118 5 |
| C | 16.86 | 1.69 | 0.18 | 0.004 5 | 0.234 5 | 0.677 1 |
| AB | 4.41 | 9.78 | 1.56 | 0.074 0 | 0.016 7 | 0.251 3 |
| AC | 3.57 | 0.27 | 5.64 | 0.100 8 | 0.616 7 | 0.049 3 |
| BC | 11.28 | 3.03 | 2.39 | 0.012 1 | 0.125 3 | 0.165 9 |
| A2 | 53.30 | 57.56 | 50.25 | 0.000 2 | 0.000 1 | 0.000 2 |
| B2 | 283.87 | 36.22 | 80.10 | <0.000 1 | 0.000 5 | <0.000 1 |
| C2 | 55.42 | 69.59 | 41.75 | 0.000 1 | <0.000 1 | 0.000 3 |
| 失拟项Lack of fit | 0.99 | 2.19 | 0.49 | |||
| 回归系数R2 | 0.985 2 | 0.966 3 | 0.967 0 | |||
| 调整后的回归系数 | 0.966 2 | 0.922 8 | 0.924 5 | |||
| 变异系数/% CV/% | 5.49 | 7.28 | 8.94 | |||
图6 不同因素交互作用对牛肉TBARS值、红绿色度(a*)和总巯基含量影响的响应曲面图
Fig.6 Response surface plots for the effects of interactions between different factors on TBARS value, redness-greenness (a*) and total sulfhydryl content of beef
图7 不同因素交互作用对牛肉TBARS值、红绿色度(a*)和总巯基含量影响的等高线图
Fig.7 Contour plots for the influence of interactions between different factors on TBARS value, redness-greenness (a*) and total sulfhydryl content of beef
图8 不同因素交互作用对牛肉TBARS值、红绿色度(a*)和总巯基含量影响的响应曲面图 Con,对照组;Thyme,百里香提取物处理组。
Fig.8 Response surface plots for the effects of interactions between different factors on TBARS value, redness-greenness (a*) and total sulfhydryl content of beef Con, Blank control group; Thyme, Thyme extract treatment group.
| 类别 Category | 物质 Substance | 化合物含量Compound content | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 对照组 Control group | 百里香提取物处理组 Thyme extract treatment group | ||
| 醛类 Aldehydes | 庚醛Heptanal | 1.20±0.56 | — |
| 苯甲醛Benzaldehyde | 3.15±0.60 | 2.56±0.17 | |
| 辛醛Octanal | 3.62±1.24 | — | |
| 壬醛Nonanal | 44.70±0.59 | 7.55±0.70 | |
| 豆蔻醛Myristaldehyde | 0.24±0.01 | 0.17±0.01 | |
| 癸醛Decanal | 2.21±0.41 | 1.29±0.24 | |
| 己醛Hexanal | 32.35±0.53 | 12.58±1.00 | |
| 醛类总量Total aldehydes | 87.49±3.56 | 24.15±1.87 | |
| 醇类 Alcohols | 3-甲基-1-丁醇3-Methyl-1-butanol | 9.29±0.84 | — |
| [R-(R*,R*)]-2,3-丁二醇[R-(R*,R*)]-2,3-Butanediol | 11.71±0.88 | — | |
| 正己醇1-Hexanol | 2.66±1.18 | 8.59±0.74 | |
| 1-辛烯-3-醇1-Octen-3-ol | 1.52±0.37 | — | |
| 2-乙基-己醇2-Ethyl-1-hexanol | 2.44±0.43 | 3.73±0.77 | |
| 正辛醇1-Octanol | 2.17±0.95 | 2.30±0.45 | |
| 醇类总量Total alcohols | 29.79±4.54 | 14.62±0.78 | |
| 酮类 Ketones | 2,3-丁二酮2,3-Butanedione | — | 3.09±0.63 |
| 乙酰丙酮Acetylacetone | 8.63±0.09 | 2.87±0.30 | |
| 2,3-庚烷二酮2,3-Heptanedione | 0.49±0.07 | — | |
| 苯乙酮Acetophenone | 1.08±0.35 | 0.72±0.07 | |
| 丙酮Acetone | 0.08±0.02 | — | |
| 2,2,5-三甲基-3,4-己二酮2,2,5-Trimethyl-3,4-hexanedione | 0.09±0.03 | — | |
| 酮类总量Total ketones | 10.38±0.39 | 6.69±0.98 | |
| 酯类Esters | 丁酸3-甲基乙酯3-Methylbutyl butyrate | 0.75±0.47 | 0.94±0.14 |
| 烃类 | 乙苯Ethylbenzene | 1.60±0.20 | — |
| Hydrocarbons | 苯乙烯Styrene | 6.51±0.88 | 4.94±0.98 |
| 3,3-二甲基己烷3,3-Dimethylhexane | 0.20±0.03 | 0.09±0.01 | |
| 烃类总量Total hydrocarbons | 8.31±1.06 | 5.03±0.98 | |
| 酸类Acids | 4-甲基-2-氧代戊酸4-Methyl-2-oxopentanoic acid | 0.42±0.05 | 0.18±0.01 |
| 萜类Terpenes | 香芹酚Carvacrol | — | 0.56±0.11 |
| 对聚伞花素p-Cymene | — | 0.36±0.12 | |
| 萜类总量Total terpenes | — | 0.93±0.23 | |
表5 百里香提取物处理前后牛肉中挥发性成分的变化
Table 5 Changes of volatile compounds in beef before and after treatment with thyme extract
| 类别 Category | 物质 Substance | 化合物含量Compound content | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 对照组 Control group | 百里香提取物处理组 Thyme extract treatment group | ||
| 醛类 Aldehydes | 庚醛Heptanal | 1.20±0.56 | — |
| 苯甲醛Benzaldehyde | 3.15±0.60 | 2.56±0.17 | |
| 辛醛Octanal | 3.62±1.24 | — | |
| 壬醛Nonanal | 44.70±0.59 | 7.55±0.70 | |
| 豆蔻醛Myristaldehyde | 0.24±0.01 | 0.17±0.01 | |
| 癸醛Decanal | 2.21±0.41 | 1.29±0.24 | |
| 己醛Hexanal | 32.35±0.53 | 12.58±1.00 | |
| 醛类总量Total aldehydes | 87.49±3.56 | 24.15±1.87 | |
| 醇类 Alcohols | 3-甲基-1-丁醇3-Methyl-1-butanol | 9.29±0.84 | — |
| [R-(R*,R*)]-2,3-丁二醇[R-(R*,R*)]-2,3-Butanediol | 11.71±0.88 | — | |
| 正己醇1-Hexanol | 2.66±1.18 | 8.59±0.74 | |
| 1-辛烯-3-醇1-Octen-3-ol | 1.52±0.37 | — | |
| 2-乙基-己醇2-Ethyl-1-hexanol | 2.44±0.43 | 3.73±0.77 | |
| 正辛醇1-Octanol | 2.17±0.95 | 2.30±0.45 | |
| 醇类总量Total alcohols | 29.79±4.54 | 14.62±0.78 | |
| 酮类 Ketones | 2,3-丁二酮2,3-Butanedione | — | 3.09±0.63 |
| 乙酰丙酮Acetylacetone | 8.63±0.09 | 2.87±0.30 | |
| 2,3-庚烷二酮2,3-Heptanedione | 0.49±0.07 | — | |
| 苯乙酮Acetophenone | 1.08±0.35 | 0.72±0.07 | |
| 丙酮Acetone | 0.08±0.02 | — | |
| 2,2,5-三甲基-3,4-己二酮2,2,5-Trimethyl-3,4-hexanedione | 0.09±0.03 | — | |
| 酮类总量Total ketones | 10.38±0.39 | 6.69±0.98 | |
| 酯类Esters | 丁酸3-甲基乙酯3-Methylbutyl butyrate | 0.75±0.47 | 0.94±0.14 |
| 烃类 | 乙苯Ethylbenzene | 1.60±0.20 | — |
| Hydrocarbons | 苯乙烯Styrene | 6.51±0.88 | 4.94±0.98 |
| 3,3-二甲基己烷3,3-Dimethylhexane | 0.20±0.03 | 0.09±0.01 | |
| 烃类总量Total hydrocarbons | 8.31±1.06 | 5.03±0.98 | |
| 酸类Acids | 4-甲基-2-氧代戊酸4-Methyl-2-oxopentanoic acid | 0.42±0.05 | 0.18±0.01 |
| 萜类Terpenes | 香芹酚Carvacrol | — | 0.56±0.11 |
| 对聚伞花素p-Cymene | — | 0.36±0.12 | |
| 萜类总量Total terpenes | — | 0.93±0.23 | |
| [1] | 孟新涛, 潘俨, 邹淑萍, 等. 不同储藏条件下鲜牛肉特征风味动态变化分析[J]. 食品工业科技, 2021, 42(15): 289-298. |
| MENG X T, PAN Y, ZOU S P, et al. Characterization of volatile component changes in fresh beef during storage under different storage conditions[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2021, 42(15): 289-298. | |
| [2] | JIAO Y, QUEK S Y, GU M H, et al. Polyphenols from thinned young kiwifruit as natural antioxidant: protective effects on beef oxidation, physicochemical and sensory properties during storage[J]. Food Control, 2020, 108: 106870. |
| [3] | 石子悦, 刘旺, 黄莹, 等. 酚类抗氧化剂及其代谢产物对鱼类的毒性研究进展[J]. 环境监控与预警, 2020, 12(5): 49-57. |
| SHI Z Y, LIU W, HUANG Y, et al. Research progress on the toxicity of synthetic phenolic antioxidants and their metabolites to fish[J]. Environmental Monitoring and Forewarning, 2020, 12(5): 49-57. | |
| [4] | HÉŚM, DZIEDZIC K, GÓRECKA D, et al. Aloe vera(L.) Webb.: natural sources of antioxidants: a review[J]. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, 2019, 74(3): 255-265. |
| [5] | 刘瑶瑶, 邹宇晓, 郑雪君, 等. 天然香辛料在肉制品绿色加工中的研究进展[J]. 中国调味品, 2022, 47(7): 215-220. |
| LIU Y Y, ZOU Y X, ZHENG X J, et al. Research progress of natural spices in green processing of meat products[J]. China Condiment, 2022, 47(7): 215-220. | |
| [6] | 韩磊, 贾娟. 天然香辛料在肉类及其制品中的应用研究进展[J]. 现代食品, 2025, 31(5): 24-26. |
| HAN L, JIA J. Research progress on the application of natural spices in meat and its products[J]. Modern Food, 2025, 31(5): 24-26. | |
| [7] | GHAFOOR K, YÜKSEL B, AL JUHAIMI F, et al. Effect of frying on physicochemical and sensory properties of potato chips fried in palm oil supplemented with thyme and rosemary extracts[J]. Journal of Oleo Science, 2020, 69(10): 1219-1230. |
| [8] | 郭艳华, 许江扬, 程德翔. 天然生姜复合物体外抗自由基活性研究[J]. 食品科学, 2009, 30(22): 96-100. |
| GUO Y H, XU J Y, CHENG D X. In vitro antioxidant activity of natural ginger extract complex[J]. Food Science, 2009, 30(22): 96-100. | |
| [9] | YU M, HE S D, TANG M M, et al. Antioxidant activity and sensory characteristics of Maillard reaction products derived from different peptide fractions of soybean meal hydrolysate[J]. Food Chemistry, 2018, 243: 249-257. |
| [10] | 周新宇, 吕重宁, 秦汝兰. 刺玫果中花色苷提取工艺优化及抗氧化性分析[J]. 食品工业科技, 2022, 43(4): 178-186. |
| ZHOU X Y, LV C N, QIN R L. Optimization of extraction technique and antioxidant activity of anthocyanins from Rosa davurica pall[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2022, 43(4): 178-186. | |
| [11] | SUN C N, LIU Y N, LIU S Y, et al. Identification and molecular mechanism of novel antioxidant peptide from fish sauce: a combined quantum chemistry and molecular simulation[J]. Food Chemistry, 2025, 463: 141108. |
| [12] | FERNÁNDEZ-LÓPEZ J, SEVILLA L, SAYAS-BARBERÁ E, et al. Evaluation of the antioxidant potential of hyssop (Hyssopus officinalis L.) and rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) extracts in cooked pork meat[J]. Journal of Food Science, 2003, 68(2): 660-664. |
| [13] | NIAN L Y, CAO A L, CAI L Y, et al. Effect of vacuum impregnation of red sea bream (Pagrosomus major) with herring AFP combined with CS@Fe3O4nanoparticles during freeze-thaw cycles[J]. Food Chemistry, 2019, 291: 139-148. |
| [14] | CAO Y G, MA W H, HUANG J R, et al. Effects of sodium pyrophosphate coupled with catechin on the oxidative stability and gelling properties of myofibrillar protein[J]. Food Hydrocolloids, 2020, 104: 105722. |
| [15] | ELLMAN G L. Reprint of: tissue sulfhydryl groups[J]. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, 2022, 726: 109245. |
| [16] | 吴倩蓉, 周慧敏, 李素, 等. 风干肠贮藏过程中挥发性风味物质的变化及异味物质分析[J]. 食品科学, 2019, 40(20): 208-216. |
| WU Q R, ZHOU H M, LI S, et al. Changes in volatile flavour compounds during storage and analysis of off-flavour substances in air-dried sausage[J]. Food Science, 2019, 40(20): 208-216. | |
| [17] | 潘俊, 周继伟, 牛之瑞, 等. 浓香型天然香辛料抗氧化及酶抑制活性研究[J]. 食品安全质量检测学报, 2025, 16(14): 181-188. |
| PAN J, ZHOU J W, NIU Z R, et al. Study on the antioxidant and enzyme inhibition activities of strong fragrance natural spices[J]. Journal of Food Safety & Quality, 2025, 16(14): 181-188. | |
| [18] | 贾娜, 孙钦秀, 李博文, 等. 香辛料提取物对酱牛肉的护色效果[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2014, 40(6): 193-198. |
| JIA N, SUN Q X, LI B W, et al. Color protection effect of spices extracts on marinated beef[J]. Food and Fermentation Industries, 2014, 40(6): 193-198. | |
| [19] | 徐岳鑫. 丁香提取物对调理猪肉饼品质的影响[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2015. |
| XU Y X. Effect of clove extract on pork patties quality[D]. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2015. | |
| [20] | 陈洪生, 刁静静, 孔保华, 等. 丁香提取物对冷藏肉饼品质的控制作用[J]. 天然产物研究与开发, 2017, 29(3): 482-488. |
| CHEN H S, DIAO J J, KONG B H, et al. Effectiveness of clove extracts on inhibiting the quality deterioration of pork patties stored at 4 ℃[J]. Natural Product Research and Development, 2017, 29(3): 482-488. | |
| [21] | 顾苑婷, 牟琴, 黄燕, 等. 迷迭香和百里香提取物对冷藏猪肉丸品质的影响[J]. 食品科技, 2021, 46(4): 103-109. |
| GU Y T, MOU Q, HUANG Y, et al. Effects of rosemary and thyme extracts on the quality of chilled pork balls[J]. Food Science and Technology, 2021, 46(4): 103-109. | |
| [22] | 李佳, 张富新, 张拥军. 百里香提取物在中式香肠中的抗菌及抗氧化性能的研究[J]. 中国食品学报, 2007, 7(3): 107-111. |
| LI J, ZHANG F X, ZHANG Y J. Studies on the antibiotic and antioxidant properties of thymus extraction applied in Chinese sausage[J]. Journal of Chinese Institute of Food Science and Technology, 2007, 7(3): 107-111. | |
| [23] | MAHGOUB S, QATTAN S Y A, BARAKAT R, et al. Effect of rosemary and thyme (Rosemarinus officinalis L. and Thymus vulgaris L.) ethanolic extracts on foodborne pathogens, physicochemical properties and improving the safety of cottage cheese with antioxidant, and antibacterial activities[J]. Applied Food Research, 2025, 5(1): 101020. |
| [24] | 徐永霞, 姜程程, 刘滢, 等. 带鱼脱腥工艺及脱腥前后的理化性质[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2013, 39(12): 68-72. |
| XU Y X, JIANG C C, LIU Y, et al. Studies on deodorization technology of strip fish and physicochemical properties before and after deodorization[J]. Food and Fermentation Industries, 2013, 39(12): 68-72. | |
| [25] | 张海燕, 吴燕燕, 李来好, 等. 响应面法优化海鲈鱼片脱腥工艺[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2019, 45(11): 143-149. |
| ZHANG H Y, WU Y Y, LI L H, et al. Optimized deodorization process of Lateolabrax japonicas fillets by response surface methodology[J]. Food and Fermentation Industries, 2019, 45(11): 143-149. | |
| [26] | 李露, 张普香, 韩朋岑, 等. 酶法水解牦牛皮蛋白制备抗氧化肽工艺的优化[J]. 食品工业科技, 2021, 42(24): 188-196. |
| LI L, ZHANG P X, HAN P C, et al. Process of the preparation of antioxidant peptides by enzymatic hydrolysis of yak hide protein[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2021, 42(24): 188-196. | |
| [27] | 温建丰, 杨文鸽, 徐大伦. 响应面法优化花蟹肉制备抗氧化肽的酶解工艺[J]. 核农学报, 2013, 27(12): 1881-1886. |
| WEN J F, YANG W G, XU D L. Optimization of enzymatic condition of Portunus pelagicus meat for preparing antioxidant peptids by response surface methodology[J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2013, 27(12): 1881-1886. | |
| [28] | YANG J, WU S L, MAI R J, et al. Formation of amino acid-derived volatile compounds in dry-cured mackerel (Scomberomorus niphonius): metabolic pathways involving microorganisms, precursors, and intermediates[J]. Food Chemistry, 2021, 364: 130163. |
| [29] | ZHAO D D, HU J, CHEN W X. Analysis of the relationship between microorganisms and flavour development in dry-cured grass carp by high-throughput sequencing, volatile flavour analysis and metabolomics[J]. Food Chemistry, 2022, 368: 130889. |
| [30] | 葛迎港, 崔柯鑫, 陈慧, 等. 3种抗氧化剂处理对干制鲅鱼脂肪氧化和挥发性风味成分的影响[J]. 肉类研究, 2023, 37(4): 21-28. |
| GE Y G, CUI K X, CHEN H, et al. Comparative effects of three antioxidants on lipid oxidation and volatile flavor components of dry-cured Spanish mackerel[J]. Meat Research, 2023, 37(4): 21-28. | |
| [31] | 陈奕颖, 刘金松, 刘玉兰, 等. 6种植物精油体外抑菌活性及抗氧化能力的比较研究[J]. 中国粮油学报, 2024, 39(5): 148-155. |
| CHEN Y Y, LIU J S, LIU Y L, et al. Comparative study on in vitro antibacterial activity and antioxidant capacity of six plant essential oils[J]. Journal of the Chinese Cereals and Oils Association, 2024, 39(5): 148-155. | |
| [32] | HUANG L, DING B, ZHANG H, et al. Textural and sensorial quality protection in frozen dumplings through the inhibition of lipid and protein oxidation with clove and rosemary extracts[J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2019, 99(10): 4739-4747. |
| [33] | 黄丕苗, 王智荣, 陈湑慧, 等. 迷迭香提取物对白鲢鱼肉腥味的影响及其脱腥条件优化[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2021, 47(6): 176-183. |
| HUANG P M, WANG Z R, CHEN X H, et al. Effect of rosemary extract on the fishy odour of silver carp and the optimization of deodorizing conditions[J]. Food and Fermentation Industries, 2021, 47(6): 176-183. |
| [1] | 康颖, 叶滔, 白雪莹, 张雪娇. 融合魏斯氏菌协同发酵制备双蛋白酸奶及其稳定性研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(6): 1099-1111. |
| [2] | 覃响, 邓翔鸿, 黄展锐, 袁驰, 陈浩, 胡连花, 何婉莹, 赵良忠. 鹌鹑蛋脉冲真空卤制工艺优化及其品质分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(5): 998-1007. |
| [3] | 朱潇, 朱颖, 李宏军, 陈善峰. 挤压制备燕麦鹰嘴豆复配米的工艺优化及其品质[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(5): 1149-1158. |
| [4] | 朱媛媛, 韩延超, 刘瑞玲, 邓尚贵, 陈慧芝, 房祥军, 吴伟杰, 郜海燕. 蟹风味香肠的工艺优化与品质分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(4): 920-933. |
| [5] | 孙凤婷, 王旭, 韩新雨, 许振岚, 吴声敢, 黄浩, 汤涛, 盛清, 王强, 沈国强, 赵学平. 复硝酚钠对铁皮石斛中黄酮含量和抗氧化活性的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(4): 934-942. |
| [6] | 乔慧茹, 房祥军, 吴伟杰, 刘瑞玲, 陈杭君, 邓尚贵, 沙浩, 郜海燕. 蓝莓与铁皮石斛叶复合乳酸菌发酵饮料工艺优化与品质分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(3): 654-666. |
| [7] | 刘雅丽, 杨福生, 宋榜桂, 杜雪, 俞奇力, 陈菲, 陈国宏. 甜菊糖苷对黄羽肉鸡生长的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(10): 2049-2056. |
| [8] | 赵小亮, 鲁雲, 康兴兴, 龙则宇, 郑晓杰. 雁荡山铁皮石斛多糖的提取、结构表征与体外抗氧化活性[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(8): 1898-1908. |
| [9] | 曹乃馨, 罗阳兰, 阎勇, 解修超, 张雯龙. 桑树桑黄JM-1胞外多糖液态培养基优化及其抗氧化性研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(6): 1245-1255. |
| [10] | 刘晨星, 曹艳, 夏其乐. 多花黄精根须皂苷的提取工艺及其抗氧化活性研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(5): 1144-1152. |
| [11] | 邵雪, 牛犇, 房祥军, 吴伟杰, 吴来春, 郜海燕, 陈杭君. 方便粥的干燥方式优选与风味优化[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(4): 894-904. |
| [12] | 杨紫瀚, 吴伟杰, 高原, 刘瑞玲, 申屠旭萍, 郜海燕, 陈杭君. 莲藕解酒功能软糖的制备及功效评价[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(2): 404-415. |
| [13] | 陈锴妮, 席宇航, 章兴, 张辉. 可控热处理对竹笋蛋白理化特性和抗氧化活性的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(11): 2584-2595. |
| [14] | 马波, 陶震, 周瑞, 王雪, 吕茜茜, 孙士红, 王寒, 高金秋, 张楚涵, 陈凤清. 花叶万年青功能成分提取条件优化与活性探究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(2): 383-393. |
| [15] | 张喜闻, 郭晓农, 王泽兴, 王亚玲. 不同复合益生菌对藜麦秸秆发酵饲料的发酵工艺优化[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(12): 2818-2829. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||