采后处理方式对五倍子品质的影响

doi:10.3969/j.issn.0253-2417.2021.01.005

林产化学与工业 ›› 2021, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (1): 29-37.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-2417.2021.01.005

采后处理方式对五倍子品质的影响

张雯雯¹(), 李坤¹^,²^,*(), 唐保山¹, 张品德³, 刘义稳³, 张弘¹

1. 中国林业科学研究院资源昆虫研究所; 国家林业和草原局特色森林资源工程技术研究中心, 云南昆明 650224
2. 信阳农林学院食品学院, 河南信阳 464000
3. 五峰赤诚生物科技股份有限公司, 国家林业和草原局五倍子高效培育与精深加工工程技术研究中心, 湖北宜昌 443413

收稿日期:2020-09-01 出版日期:2021-02-28 发布日期:2021-03-03
通讯作者: 李坤 E-mail:zhangwenwen1105@163.com;likunkm@163.com
作者简介:李坤, 助理研究员, 博士, 研究方向为林业生物资源化学与材料; E-mail: likunkm@163.com
张雯雯(1985-), 女, 山东阳谷人, 助理研究员, 硕士, 研究方向为天然产物加工与利用; E-mail: zhangwenwen1105@163.com
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划资助项目(2018YFD0600404)

Effect of Post-harvest Treatment on the Product Quality of Chinese Gallnut

Wenwen ZHANG¹(), Kun LI¹^,²^,*(), Baoshan TANG¹, Pinde ZHANG³, Yiwen LIU³, Hong ZHANG¹

1. Research Institute of Resources Insects, Chinese Academy of Forestry; Research Center of Engineering and Technology on Characteristic Forest Resources, National Forestry and Grassland Administration, Kunming 650224, China
2. School of Agricultural Sciences, Xinyang Agriculture and Forestry University, Xinyang 464000, China
3. Wufeng Chicheng Biotechnology Co. Ltd.; Research Centers of Chinese Gall Effective Cultivation and Deep Processing Engineering Technology, National Forestry and Grassland Administration, Yichang 443413, China

Received:2020-09-01 Online:2021-02-28 Published:2021-03-03
Contact: Kun LI E-mail:zhangwenwen1105@163.com;likunkm@163.com

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

对比了蒸汽烫漂（SB）和沸水浸烫（BWB）2种预处理方式对新鲜五倍子的影响，以及经过预处理后分别采用烘箱干燥（OD）、流化床干燥（FBD）、自然干燥（ND）和紫外光辐照（UVI）4种干燥方式所得五倍子产品的品质。对干燥速率及产品指标的分析结果表明：预处理后五倍子含水率和单宁酸含量均有所降低，尤其是蒸汽烫漂后，含水率降为47.68%，与未处理五倍子含水率（55.77%）呈显著性差异；加热处理会使五倍子干燥产品中单宁酸的含量降低而没食子酸的含量增加，自然干燥的五倍子单宁酸质量分数在50.12%~56.84%之间，没食子酸质量分数在0.29%~0.46%之间，而烘箱干燥后五倍子中单宁酸质量分数仅为32.48%~42.43%，没食子酸质量分数高达2.97%~4.39%；不同采后处理方式对产品品质有不同的影响，沸水浸烫或蒸汽烫漂与紫外光辐照相结合可提高五倍子的干燥速率，且对产品单宁酸含量影响较小；烘箱和流化床干燥可将干燥时间降为5 h以内，但所得五倍子产品中单宁酸质量分数显著降低，均在32%~43%之间；沸水浸烫或蒸汽烫漂后自然干燥能保证单宁酸的结构最接近原始状态，但干燥时间高达200 h以上；所以可根据实际的操作条件和后续的应用选择五倍子的采后处理方式。工业化五倍子的采后处理因更注重干燥效率，以蒸汽烫漂预处理辅之以流化床干燥方式为佳。

关键词: 五倍子, 预处理, 干燥方式, 品质

Abstract:

The effects of two pretreatments, steam blanching(SB) and boiling water blanching(BWB), on fresh Chinese gallnuts were studied. After the pretreatment, oven drying(OD), fluidized bed drying(FBD), natural drying(ND), and ultraviolet irradiation(UVI) were selected to dry gallnuts and the effects of the four drying methods on the quality of the gallnut products were investigated.The results showed that: after two pretreatments, the moisture content and tannic acid content of the gallnut products decreased, especially after steam blanching, which resulted in a decrease in the moisture content to 47.68%, which was significantly different from that of untreated gallnut(55.77%). Heat treatment reduced the tannic acid content, while the gallic acid content in the dried gallnuts increased. The tannic acid content of ND gallnut was 50.12%-56.84%, and the gallic acid content was 0.29%-0.46%. After oven drying, the tannic acid content in the gallnuts decreased to 32.48%-42.43%, while the gallic acid content was as high as 2.97%-4.39%; different post-harvest treatments had different effects on the quality of the products. Boiling water blanching or steam blanching combined with ultraviolet irradiation could increase the drying rate of gallnuts and had little effect on the tannin content of the products. Oven drying and fluidized bed drying could reduce the drying time to less than 5 h, but the tannic acid content(32%-43%) in the obtained gallnut products was also reduced significantly; ND after pretreatment could maintain the original structure of tannin, but the drying time was more than 200 h.Therefore, the post-harvest treatment of fresh gallnut could be selected according to the actual operating conditions and its applications. Industries should pay more attention to drying efficiency when choosing the treatments of gallnuts; a combination of steam blanching and fluidized bed drying is more preferred.

Key words: Chinese gallnut, pretreatment, drying methods, quality

中图分类号:

TQ35
S577

张雯雯, 李坤, 唐保山, 张品德, 刘义稳, 张弘. 采后处理方式对五倍子品质的影响[J]. 林产化学与工业, 2021, 41(1): 29-37.

Wenwen ZHANG, Kun LI, Baoshan TANG, Pinde ZHANG, Yiwen LIU, Hong ZHANG. Effect of Post-harvest Treatment on the Product Quality of Chinese Gallnut[J]. Chemistry and Industry of Forest Products, 2021, 41(1): 29-37.

图/表 8

图1

图2

表1

图3

表2

图4

表3

表4

参考文献 28

1	杨子祥, 张燕平. 中国传统林特产品-五倍子[J]. 生物资源, 2017, 39 (5): 389- 390.
	YANG Z X , ZHANG Y P . Chinese traditional forestry specialty: Chinese gallnut[J]. Biotic Resources, 2017, 39 (5): 389- 390.
2	国家药典委员会. 中华人民共和国药典(一部)[M]. 北京: 中国医药科技出版社, 2015: 67
	Chinese Pharmacopoeia Commission . Chinese Pharmacopeia[M]. Beijing: China Medical Science Press, 2015: 67
3	秦清, 闵凡芹, 徐浩, 等. 响应面法优化微波辅助提取五倍子单宁工艺研究[J]. 林产化学与工业, 2012, 32 (6): 84- 88.
	QIN Q , MIN F Q , XU H , et al. Optimization of microwave-assisted extraction of tannic acid from Chinese gallnut using response surface method[J]. Chemistry and Industry of Forest Products, 2012, 32 (6): 84- 88.
4	林余霖, 程惠珍, 陈君. 五倍子及其寄主植物的单宁酸含量分析[J]. 中国中药杂志, 1997, 22 (1): 16- 17.
	LIN Y L , CHENG H Z , CHEN J . Analysis of tannic acid content of Galla chinensis and its host plant[J]. China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica, 1997, 22 (1): 16- 17.
5	DEVEOGLU O , TORGAN E , KARADAG R . Identification by RP-HPLC-DAD of naturaldyestuffs from lake pigments prepared with a mixture of weld and dyer's oak dye plants[J]. Journal of Liquid Chromatography & Related Technologies, 2012, (35): 331- 342.
6	FANG T , BO L , JI B , et al. Antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of consecutive extractsfrom Galla chinensis: The polarity affects the bioactivities[J]. Food Chemistry, 2009, 113 (1): 173- 179. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.07.062
7	TONG S , FU M , CAO X , et al. Lipid raft stationary phase chromatography for screeninganti-tumor components from Galla chinensis[J]. Chromatographia, 2014, 77 (5/6): 1- 11. doi: 10.1007/s10337-014-2623-y
8	ZHANG Q , XU D H , KLESIUS P H . Evaluation of an antiparasitic compound extracted from Galla chinensis against fish parasite ichthyophthiriusmultifiliis[J]. Veterinary Parasitology, 2013, 198 (1/2): 45- 53.
9	BUZZINI P , ARAPITSAS P , GORETTI M , et al. Antimicrobial and antiviral activity of hydrolysable tannins[J]. Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry, 2008, (8): 1179- 1187.
10	JING J , LIANG S F , YAN Y F , et al. Fabrication of hybrid hydrogels from silk fibroin and tannic acid with enhanced gelation and antibacterial activities[J]. ACS Biomaterials-Science & Engineering, 2019, 5 (9): 4601- 4611.
11	孙云, 吴考, 倪学文, 等. 含五倍子水提物的魔芋葡甘聚糖涂膜液对冷鲜猪肉的保鲜效果研究[J]. 食品工业科技, 2017, 38 (2): 328- 331, 363.
	SUN Y , WU K , NI X W , et al. Galla chinensis water extract/konjac glucomannan usedas coating to extend the storage life of chilled meat[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2017, 38 (2): 328- 331, 363.
12	BASSO M C , PIZZI A , MARIS J P , et al. MALDI-TOF, ¹³C NMR and FTIR analysis of the cross-linking reaction of condensed tannins by triethyl phosphate[J]. Industrial Crops and Products, 2017, (95): 621- 631.
13	XU Q , WANG Y , JIN L , et al. Adsorption of Cu(Ⅱ), Pb(Ⅱ) and Cr(Ⅵ) from aqueous solutions using black wattle tannin-immobilized nanocellulose[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2017, (339): 91- 99.
14	吕强, 彭密军, 兰文菊, 等. 不同处理方法对杜仲皮及叶中多种活性成分含量的影响[J]. 林产化学与工业, 2012, 32 (1): 75- 79.
	LYU Q , PENG M J , LAN W J , et al. Effect of processing methods on the content of several active ingredients inbarks and leaves of Eucommia ulmoides Oliv.[J]. Chemistry and Industry of Forest Products, 2012, 32 (1): 75- 79.
15	CHUA L Y W , CHUA B L , FIGIEL A , et al. Antioxidant activity, and volatile and phytosterolcontents of strobilanthescrispus dehydrated usingconventional and vacuum microwavedrying methods[J]. Molecules, 2019, 24 (7): 1397- 1418. doi: 10.3390/molecules24071397
16	涂行浩, 郑华, 张弘, 等. 高温短时蒸汽处理对玛咖黑芥子酶活性及品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2012, 45 (21): 4447- 4456.
	TU X H , ZHENG H , ZHANG H , et al. Effects of high temperature-short time steam blanching(HTSTSB) on myrosinase activity and nutrients of Maca[J]. China Agriculture Science, 2012, 45 (21): 4447- 4456.
17	涂行浩, 郑华, 张弘, 等. 玛咖块根流化床干燥特性及动力学研究[J]. 热带作物学报, 2015, 36 (8): 1426- 1431.
	TU X H , ZHENG H , ZHANG H , et al. Fluidized Bed Drying Properties and Kinetics Model of Maca Tubers[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2015, 36 (8): 1426- 1431.
18	刘义军, 袁源, 刘洋洋, 等. 干燥方法对互叶白千层理化特性及精油品质的影响[J]. 林产化学与工业, 2019, 39 (4): 77- 82.
	LIU Y J , YUAN Y , LIU Y Y , et al. Effects of different drying methods on physicochemical properties andessential oil quality of Melaleuca alternifolia Cheel[J]. Chemistry and Industry of Forest Products, 2019, 39 (4): 77- 82.
19	YAN J K , WU L X , QIAO Z R , et al. Effect of different drying methods on the product quality and bioactive polysaccharides of bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.) slices[J]. Food Chemistry, 2018, 271, 588- 596.
20	厚生劳动省. 日本食品添加物公定書[S/OL]. 8版. 2007: 409[2020-03-01]. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/seisakunitsuite/bunya/kenkouiryou/shokuhin/syokuten/dl/8e03.poy.
	Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Specifications and Standards for Foods, Food Additives, etc.Under The Food Sanitation Law[S/OL]. 8th ed.2007: 409[2020-03-01].https://www.mhlw.go.jp/seisakunitsuite/bunya/kenkouiryou/shokuhin/syokuten/dl/8e03.poy.
21	钟可, 吴亚丽, 王世清, 等. 高效液相色谱法测定黔产五倍子中没食子酸的含量[J]. 中国医院用药评价与分析, 2018, 18 (1): 36- 39.
	ZHONG K , WU Y L , WANG S Q , et al. Content determination of gallic acid in Guizhou galla chinensis by HPLC[J]. Evaluation and analysis of drug-use in hospitals of China, 2018, 18 (1): 36- 39.
22	VERZELE M , DELAHAYE P . Analysis of tannic acids by high-performance liquid chromatography[J]. Journal of Chromatography A, 1983, 268, 469- 476.
23	黄俊学, 刘彦东, 陈文生, 等. 响应面法优化不同年份黄精中总糖含量的测定[J]. 食品工业, 2017, 38 (9): 306- 310.
	HUANG J X , LIU Y D , CHEN W S , et al. Optimization of determination of total sugar content in Polygonatum sibiricum Red.of different years using response surface methodology[J]. The Food Industry, 2017, 38 (9): 306- 310.
24	GUNMOYELA O A O . The use of steam blanching for preserving the quality of kolanuts(Cola nitida)[J]. Food Chemistry, 1989, 32 (3): 163- 170.
25	DRAKE S R , CARMICHAEL D M . Frozen vegetable quality as influenced by high temperature short time(HTST) steam blanching[J]. Journal of Food Science, 2010, 51 (5): 1378- 1379.
26	金盼盼. 没食子酸的清洁生产工艺研究[D]. 北京: 北京化工大学, 2015.
	JIN P P. Study on the cleaning production technology of gallic acid[D]. Beijing: Beijing University of Chemical Technology, 2015.
27	BOI M , GORGIEVA S , KOKOL V . Homogeneous and heterogeneous methods for laccase-mediated functionalization of chitosan by tannic acid and quercetin[J]. Carbohydrate Polymers, 2012, 89 (3): 854- 864.
28	石碧, 狄莹. 植物多酚[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2002.
	SHI B , DI Y . Plant Polyphenol[M]. Beijing: China Science Publishing & Media Ltd., 2002.

预处理方式 pretreatment	含水率/% moisture content	单宁酸/% tannic acid	色度 surface color
预处理方式 pretreatment	含水率/% moisture content	单宁酸/% tannic acid	L^*	a^*	b^*
未处理 untreated(UT)	55.77±0.62^a	59.11±1.56^b	30.09±0.13^a	2.12±0.84^a	20.08±0.08^a
沸水浸烫 boiling water blanching(BWB)	54.72±2.03^a	53.49±1.65^a	59.93±1.12^c	6.58±0.83^b	39.09±0.23^b
蒸汽烫漂 steam blanching(SB)	47.68±1.98^b	50.04±1.39^a	42.50±0.90^b	6.63±1.13^b	30.96±0.14^c

处理方式 treatments	含水率/% moisture content	色度 surface color
处理方式 treatments	含水率/% moisture content	L^*	a^*	b^*
BWB-OD	5.19±0.49^b	32.47±0.50^c	7.37±0.25^g	17.00±0.07^h
BWB-FBD	7.01±0.43^cd	35.97±0.37^g	3.91±0.24^c	14.50±0.20^cd
BWB-ND	10.75±0.47^g	34.05±0.91^e	3.34±0.27^b	12.47±0.11^a
BWB-UVI	3.19±0.18^a	31.52±0.51^b	6.44±0.12^f	14.69±0.27^d
SB-OD	6.62±0.31^c	32.68±0.49^c	6.04±0.09^e	15.52±0.29^ef
SB-FBD	8.48±0.46^f	36.08±0.58^g	3.89±0.16^c	14.27±0.13^c
SB-ND	10.71±0.45^g	33.16±0.60^cd	3.42±0.04^b	13.13±0.27^b
SB-UVI	3.28±0.18^a	28.84±0.25^a	9.08±0.25^h	15.80±0.30^f
UT-OD	7.63±0.16^de	38.47±0.40ⁱ	4.57±0.06^d	16.17±0.18^g
UT-FBD	8.23±0.33^ef	33.71±0.08^de	4.63±0.11^d	14.21±0.04^c
UT-ND	11.73±0.50^h	37.02±0.18^h	2.36±0.02^a	12.15±0.02^a
UT-UVI	3.24±0.22^a	35.01±0.54^f	5.90±0.08^e	15.18±0.27^e

处理方式 treatments	没食子酸/% gallic acid	单宁酸/% tannic acid	单宁酸相对分子质量 relative molecular mass of tannic acid
处理方式 treatments	没食子酸/% gallic acid	单宁酸/% tannic acid	M_n	M_w
BWB-OD	4.39±0.40^f	32.48±0.41^a	609.3	902.2
BWB-FBD	1.86±0.11^b	33.90±0.24^ab	695.4	987.0
BWB-ND	0.29±0.08^a	56.84±1.79^f	820.3	1118.0
BWB-UVI	3.90±0.17^e	57.05±0.50^f	695.2	1011.9
SB-OD	3.29±0.39^cd	42.43±0.96^d	563.2	809.5
SB-FBD	1.55±0.14^b	42.96±1.12^d	650.9	926.2
SB-ND	0.46±0.06^a	50.12±0.79^e	783.9	1078.8
SB-UVI	3.51±0.33^de	50.81±0.60^e	607.4	872.6
UT-OD	2.97±0.23^c	34.06±0.90^bc	700.9	1014.0
UT-FBD	1.48±0.13^b	36.90±0.42^c	712.1	1023.7
UT-ND	0.34±0.08^a	54.33±0.47^f	867.7	1191.5
UT-UVI	2.99±0.04^c	52.48±4.25^f	646.5	922.3

处理方式 treatments	总糖/% total sugar	粗脂肪/% crude fat	粗纤维/% crude fiber	粗蛋白/% crude protein
BWB-OD	11.97±0.57^b	1.55±0.08^f	3.83±0.50^a	5.52±0.16^a
BWB-FBD	14.13±0.18^d	1.70±0.10^g	3.81±0.22^a	6.09±0.26^b
BWB-ND	14.77±0.64^def	1.08±0.04^cde	3.76±0.62^a	5.46±0.31^a
BWB-UVI	14.46±0.15^de	0.95±0.06^b	3.94±0.48^a	5.53±0.12^a
SB-OD	15.04±0.23^ef	1.16±0.04^e	3.80±0.28^a	5.54±0.01^a
SB-FBD	12.24±0.07^b	1.01±0.05^bcd	4.12±0.40^a	6.08±0.33^b
SB-ND	14.93±0.81^ef	1.12±0.04^de	3.44±0.52^a	5.64±0.32^ab
SB-UVI	15.32±0.11^f	1.09±0.02^cde	3.63±0.52^a	5.27±0.13^a
UT-OD	10.68±0.07^a	0.75±0.06^a	3.82±0.58^a	5.18±0.15^a
UT-FBD	11.59±0.06^b	0.71±0.07^a	3.79±0.30^a	5.50±0.20^a
UT-ND	10.75±0.29^a	0.98±0.11^bc	3.89±0.66^a	5.30±0.34^a
UT-UVI	13.43±0.59^c	0.77±0.04^a	3.42±0.51^a	5.33±0.06^a

[1]	詹云妮, 黄晨, 郝昕, 王梓萌, 邓拥军, 房桂干. 水热预处理竹材制备低聚木糖和单糖的研究[J]. 林产化学与工业, 2021, 41(1): 77-84.
[2]	蒋建新, 朱莉伟, 张伟, 李先平. 预处理温度对圆皂荚多糖胶制备与性能的影响[J]. 林产化学与工业, 2020, 40(6): 1-7.
[3]	吴珽,梁龙,朱北平,邓拥军,房桂干. 基于LASSO法的桉木-相思混合制浆原料近红外分析模型的建立[J]. 林产化学与工业, 2020, 40(5): 83-90.
[4]	储秋露,陈雪艳,宋凯,王静,张晓东,施爱平. 两步法预处理对杨木酶水解及木质素吸附性能的影响[J]. 林产化学与工业, 2019, 39(6): 68-74.
[5]	黄晨, 武新星, 赖晨欢, 黄曹兴, 李鑫, 勇强. 高灰分麦糠水热预处理及其酶水解性能研究[J]. 林产化学与工业, 2019, 39(5): 26-32.
[6]	陈雪艳, 储秋露, 王静, 张晓东, 施爱平. 两步法预处理脱除木质素对杨木酶水解的影响[J]. 林产化学与工业, 2019, 39(5): 73-79.
[7]	张浩楠, 韦家慧, 赵辉, 李丹, 任浩. 浒苔纤维聚丙烯酸吸水树脂的制备及性能分析[J]. 林产化学与工业, 2019, 39(5): 101-107.
[8]	乔慧,欧阳水平,刘蕾,欧阳嘉. 低浓度乙酸预处理玉米芯的工艺研究[J]. 林产化学与工业, 2019, 39(1): 81-87.
[9]	冯彦洪, 王端, 肖和平, 何和智, 瞿金平. 螺杆蒸汽爆破预处理对稻秆结构及其无胶板性能的影响[J]. 林产化学与工业, 2018, 38(3): 69-74.
[10]	董益帆, 刘志佳, 兰天晴. 预处理对蔗渣吸附纤维素酶特性的影响[J]. 林产化学与工业, 2018, 38(2): 75-79.
[11]	李娇阳, 黄吉振, 刘玉新, 孙兵, 梁星, 张宝. 漆酶预处理前后蔗渣半纤维素的提取及性质研究[J]. 林产化学与工业, 2018, 38(1): 121-126.
[12]	周静, 沈葵忠, 房桂干, 梁龙, 田庆文, 李漫. 不同预处理方法对麦草化学组分及其酶解性能的影响[J]. 林产化学与工业, 2017, 37(5): 53-60.
[13]	何士成, 孙曼钰, 孙忠岩, 舒月力, 贾士儒, 钟成. 蒸汽爆破与碱法协同预处理对小麦秸秆结构及酶解的影响[J]. 林产化学与工业, 2017, 37(5): 126-132.
[14]	李勇, 李健, 刘鹏, 闫树军, 李庆, 侯书林. 棉秆炭制备的多目标优化研究[J]. 林产化学与工业, 2017, 37(4): 81-88.
[15]	李士伟, 杨静翎, 李辉, 谭梦娇, 黄忠良, 李昌珠. 水热预处理对樟木屑制备成型燃料行为的影响[J]. 林产化学与工业, 2017, 37(4): 129-136.

采后处理方式对五倍子品质的影响

Effect of Post-harvest Treatment on the Product Quality of Chinese Gallnut

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 28

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

关于本刊

投稿指南

在线期刊

相关单位

联系我们