7 7 Vol. 7 No. 7 2016 7 Journal of Food Safety and Quality Jul., 2016 谢 萍 1,2, 徐明生 1*, 尹忠平 1, 唐道邦 3, 徐玉娟 3, 戴艺 1 (1. /, 330045; 2., 341000; 3. /, 510610) 摘要 : 目的 (special spoilage organisms, SSO) 方法 4 25, 结果 25, (lactic acid bacteria, LAB) (total volatile basic nitrogen, TVB-N) (P 0.01), (minimum spoilage, Ns) 7.09 lg(cfu/g); 4, (thiobarbituric acid reactive substances, TBARS) TVB-N (P<0.01), Ns 6.71 lg(cfu/g) SSO, 4 SSO, LAB 25 SSO 结论 关键词 : ; ; Determination of special spoilage organisms in bulk sauced duck products XIE Ping 1,2, XU Ming-Sheng 1*, YIN Zhong-Ping 1, TANG Dao-Bang 3, XU Yu-Juan 3, DAI Yi 1 (1. Jiangxi Agricultural University/Engineering Laboratory for Agro-processing and Safety Control of Jiangxi, Nanchang 330045, China; 2. Jiangxi Huangde Food Co., Ltd., Ganzhou 314000, China; 3. Sericultural & Agri-Food Research Institute Guangdong Academy of Agricultural Sciences/ Guangdong Key Laboratory of Agricultural Products Processing, Guangzhou 510610, China) ABSTRACT: Objective To determination the special spoilage organisms (SSO) of bulk sauced duck products. Methods The physicochemical and sensory evaluation were analyzed during storage at 4 and 25, and the correlations of physical and chemical index, sensory indexes and microbial indexes with the amounts of microorganism were analyzed. Results lactic acid bacteria (LAB), Enterobacteriaceae and Staphylococcus had high amounts during storage at 25 and showed significant relations with total volatile basic nitrogen (TVB-N) and sensory evaluations (P<0.01), and minimum spoilage (Ns) was determined as 7.09 lg(cfu/g). Psychrophiles had high amounts during storage at 4 and showed significant relations with TBARS, TVB-N and sensory evaluations with higher Pearson correlations (P<0.01), and Ns was determined as 6.71 lg(cfu/g). Results showed that SSO was different under different storage conditions. LAB, Enterobacteriaceae and Staphylococcus should be the SSO of bulk sauced duck during storage at and 25, and Psychrophiles should be the SSO of bulk sauced duck during storage at 4. Conclusion This research can provide a theoretical foundation for development of a effective shelf-life 基金项目 : 2013 (201301) Fund: Supported by Guangdong Key Laboratory of Agricultural Products Processing Project (201301) * 通讯作者 :,, E-mail: xmsjy@sina.com *Corresponding author: XU Ming-Sheng, Professor, College of Food Science and Engineering, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China. E-mail: xmsjy@sina.com
2896 7 prediction model and ensuring edible safety. KEY WORDS: sauced duck products; spoilage characteristics; special spoilage organisms 1 引言,,,,,,,,,,, (special spoilage organisms, SSO), SSO, SSO [1], SSO,, SSO, SSO,,, [2-4] SSO [5] SSO, [1,6], SSO,, [1], SSO,,, 4 ( ) 25 ( ) [7,8],,, 4 25, SSO (minimum spoilage, Ns), 2 材料与方法 2.1 仪器与试剂 Testo 650 ( Testo ); T 25 digital ULTRA-TURRAX ( IKA ); V-5600 ( ); PHS-P2 ( ); SPX-250-II ( ); JJ-CJ-2A ( ); D-1 ( ); TDL-5-A ( ); MJ-BL25C3 ( ) (plate count agar, PCA) (potato dextrose agar, PDA) MRS(man rogosa sharpe) (violet red bile glucose agar, VRBGA) MSA, ; 1,1,1,3,3- TEP(E.Mesck, 97%, aladdin ); PG(aladdin ); 2- TBA( ) 2.2 实验方法 2.2.1 样品贮藏,, 4 25, 3 0.5 d, 3 2.2.2 微生物计数 GB 4789.2-2010 [9] 1 Table 1 表 1 选择性培养基及培养条件 Selective medium and culture conditions ( ) (d) PCA 37 2 4 25 PDA 25 5 4 25 (LAB) MRS 30 [9] 2 25 VRBGA 37 1~2 25 MSA 37 2 25 PCA 4 10 4 25
7, : 2897 2.2.3 ph 测定 GB/T 9695.5-2008 ph [10] 2.2.4 水分活度 (Aw) 测定 GB/T 23490-2009 [11] 2.2.5 挥发性盐基氮 (TVB-N) 测定 GB/T 5009.44-2003 [12] 2.2.6 硫代巴比妥酸反应物 (TBARS) 测定 Grossi [13], : 10 g 50 ml, 30 ml 7.5%TCA (0.1%EDTA, 0.1%PG), (9500 r/min, 30 s); 4000 r/min 10 min, ; 5 ml, 5 ml 0.02 mol/l TBA,, 100 40 min,, A 532 A 600, : 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 ml, 5 ml, 5 ml TBA,, : Y=1.0718X 0.0054 (R 2 =0.9998, P<0.000) TBARS ( A TBARS (mgmda/kg)= 532 A600 0.0054) 5 6 1.0718 m : A 532 : 532 nm ; A 600 : 600 nm ; m:, g 2.2.7 感官评价 7,, 7, 7, 1, 4 2.2.8 SSO Ns 的确定, (Aw ph TBARS TVB-N), SSO Ns 2.2.9 数据分析 lg(cfu/g), DPS 9.50 (Dunnett ), SPSS 17.0 3 结果与分析 3.1 产品贮藏期间 Aw 的变化, Aw, Aw, Aw [14] 4 25 Aw, 1 4 Aw (P=0.0187), 6 d Aw, Aw (P>0.05) 25 Aw (P=0.0021), 1 d Aw, Aw, (P>0.05) [15], Aw, Aw Fig.1 1 Aw Changes of Aw in bulk sauced duck products during storage
2898 7 3.2 产品贮藏期间 ph 的变化 ph [15] 2 ph 4 25 ph (P 0.0001) Weissella sp. [7], 4 3 d M.caseolyticus 4 3 d (32.41%) [7], [16], ph 3 d, ph 4 P.pulmonis [7], Bowman [17] ( ),, 4 ph 25 1 d Weissella sp. [7], ph (P<0.01); 1 d, ph,, ph 3.3 产品贮藏期间 TBARS 的变化 TBARS [15] 4 25 TBARS 3, (P 0.0001), [15], 4 3 d, TBARS, M.caseolyticus 6~9 d TBARS, TBARS, 18 d TBARS 1.008 mg MDA/kg, [17] 25, TBARS 0.53~0.69 mg MDA/kg, 3.4 产品贮藏期间 TVB-N 的变化 TVB-N TVB-N TVB-N 2, 4 25, TVB-N (P 0.0001) 4 TVB-N 20 mg/100 g, P.pulmonis [7], P.pulmonis [15] Psychrobacter glacincola 4 TVB-N 20 mg/100 g 25 2.5 d TVB-N 20 mg/100 g, 3 d TVB-N (19.4±0.59) mg/100 g [18], 0~4 6~10 TVB-N,, 3.5 产品贮藏期间感官的变化 4 25 3,,, 4 15 d,, : Fig. 2 2 ph Changes of ph in bulk sauced duck products during storage
7, : 2899 Fig. 3 3 TBARS Changes of TBARS in bulk sauced duck products during storage 表 2 多重比较 (Dunnett 法 ) Table 2 Multiple comparisons (Dunnett) 4 25 /d TVB-N/(mg/100 g) /d TVB-N/(mg/100 g) 0 10.0±0.48 ed 0 10.0±0.48 fd 3 12.3±1.04 dc 0.5 11.8±1.11 ecd 6 13.7±0.29 cbc 1 13.4±0.71 dc 9 14.9±0.53 bb 1.5 15.9±0.77 cb 12 14.3±0.51 bcb 2 17.3±1.02 cb 15 17.2±0.24 aa 2.5 21.2±0.83 aa 18 18.2±0.70 aa 3 19.4±0.59 bb : (P<0.05), (P<0.01) 表 3 散装酱卤鸭肉制品 4 25 贮藏期间感官变化 Table 3 Sensory values of bulk sauced duck products during storage at 4 and 25 /d 0 6.88±0.12,,, 3 6.75±0.23,,, 6 6.00±0.35, 4 9 5.45±0.66, 12 4.54±0.30,, 15 3.00±0.56,,, 18 2.31±0.31,,,,
2900 7 续表 3 /d 0 6.88±0.12,,, 0.5 6.77±0.45,,, 1 6.00±0.35,, 25 1.5 4.94±0.45,,, 2 3.26±0.10,,, 2.5 2.37±0.58,,,, 3 1.33±0.10,,,, 25 2 d,, : 3.6 产品贮藏期间微生物的变化 4 25 4 5,,, 4 5, 25 4, 4 12 d (5.94 lg(cfu/g)) (4.90 lg(cfu/g)), 25 1 d (6.53 lg(cfu/g)) 3.7 SSO 的确定 SPSS 17.0 (ph Aw TVB-N TBARS), 4 4, 4 25 TVB-N (P<0.01), 4 TBARS (P<0.01), 4 4, TVB-N, ph, [19], TVB-N TBARS SSO, 3.6, 4 SSO, LAB 25 SSO, SSO Mataragas [20] Metaxopoulos [21] LAB SSO, LAB [1] 4 4 Fig. 4 Changes of microorganisms in bulk sauced duck products during storage at 4 5 25 Fig. 5 Changes of microorganisms in bulk sauced duck products during storage at 25
7, : 2901 表 4 Pearson 相关系数 Table 4 Pearson correlation coefficient Aw ph TBARS TVB-N -0.7093 0.6411 0.9176** 0.9436** -0.9902** -0.6965 0.7537 0.8883** 0.8933** -0.9882** -0.6613 0.6865 0.9081** 0.8908** -0.9835** 4 Aw 1-0.8426* -0.6812-0.7819* 0.7378 ph 1 0.6989 0.6020-0.7184 TBARS 1 0.7809* -0.9117** TVB-N 1-0.9379** 1-0.2837 0.5587-0.1656 0.9518** -0.8948** -0.0605 0.7049-0.1268 0.9261** -0.9410** LAB -0.2452 0.5914-0.0771 0.9762** -0.9521** -0.1360 0.5855-0.1707 0.9507** -0.9379** 25-0.1853 0.6321-0.1399 0.9479** -0.9135** Aw 1 0.1982-0.0537-0.2952 0.0963 ph 1 0.3799 0.6298-0.7313 TBARS 1-0.0113-0.1322 TVB-N 1-0.9474** 1 : **: 0.01 ( ); *: 0.05 ( ),,,, [22] [23],, SSO,,, 3.8 Ns 的确定 3.5, 25 2 d, Ns (Y 25 ) LAB (X 25, lg(cfu/g)), : Y 25 =-0.7951X 25 +9.6399(R 2 =0.9065, P<0.01) P<0.01,, 4,, LAB 7.09 lg(cfu/g), 25 Ns 7.09 lg(cfu/g) Borch [24], 7~8 lg(cfu/g),, 4 (Y 4 ) (X 4, lg(cfu/g)) : Y 4 =-0.6635X 4 +8.4517(R 2 =0.9673, P<0.01) 4 Ns 6.71 lg(cfu/g), [25] 2014 Ns 6.49 lg(cfu/g),, PCA
2902 7 4 结论 SSO, 4 SSO, LAB 25 SSO 25, LAB (P<0.01), LAB, Y 25 =-0.7951X 25 +9.6399(R 2 =0.9065, P<0.01), Ns 7.09 lg(cfu/g); 4, (P<0.01), Y 4 =-0.6635X 4 + 8.4517(R 2 =0.9673, P <0.01), Ns 6.71 l g(cfu/g) 参考文献 [1]. [D]. :, 2010. Liang RR. Bacterial community and shelf-life predictive model of freshly prepared chicken products [D]. Tai'an: Shandong Agricultural University, 2010. [2],,,. [J]., 2010, 31(23): 142-145. Hu JY, Yan WL, Lin L, et al. Change regularity and predictive modeling of dominant spoilage microorganisms in Chinese spiced beef during modified atmosphere storage [J]. Food Sci, 2010, 31(23): 142-145. [3],,,. [J]., 2013, 27(6): 25-28. Lu JY, Luo RM, Liu YY, et al. Predictive modeling of the shelf life of spiced beef [J]. Meat Res, 2013, 27(6): 25-28. [4],,,. [J]., 2012, 33(22): 351-354. Qiu CQ, Zang KS, Ren YX, et al. Research of the prediction of sauce chicken shelf-life [J]. Sci Technol Food Ind, 2012, 33(22): 351-354. [5] Gram L, Dalgaard P. Fish spoilage bacteria-problems and solutions [J]. Curr Opinion Biotechnol, 2002, 13(3): 262-266. [6] Nychas G-JE, Skandamis PN, Tassou CC, et al. Meat spoilage during distribution [J]. Meat Sci, 2008, 78(1): 77-89. [7],,,. MiSeq [J]., 2015, 31(11): 120-127. Xie P, Xu MS, Yin ZP, et al. Microbial populations diversity of bulk sauced duck during storage by MiSeq sequencing [J]. Mod Food Sci Technol, 2015, 31(11): 120-127. [8] Ercolini D, Ferrocino I, La Storia A, et al. Development of spoilage microbiota in beef stored in nisin activated packaging [J]. Food Microbiol, 2010, 27(1): 137-143. [9] GB 4789. 2-2010 [S]. GB 4789. 2-2010 Food microbiological examination: aerobic plate count [S]. [10] GB/T 9695.5-2008 ph [S]. GB/T 9695.5-2008 Meat and meat products: measurement of ph [S]. [11] GB/T 23490-2009 [S]. GB/T 23490-2009 Determination of water activity in foods [S]. [12] GB/T 5009.44-2003 [S]. GB/T 5009.44-2003 Method for analysis of hygienic standard of meat and meat products [S]. [13] Grossi A, Bolumar T, Søltoft-Jensen J, et al. High pressure treatment of brine enhanced pork semitendinosus: Effect on microbial stability, drip loss, lipid and protein oxidation, and sensory properties [J]. Innovat Food Sci Emerg Technol, 2014, 22: 11-21. [14]. [M]. :, 2008. Kan JQ. Food chemistry [M]. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2008. [15]. [D]. :, 2013. Xiao X. Bacterial diversity and the inhibitory mechanism of antibacterial plant extracts against specific spoilage organism in yao meat [D]. Zhengjiang: Jiangsu University, 2013. [16],,,. Macrococcus caseolyticus [J]., 2011, 32(7): 207-213. Wu YT, Zhao MM, Sun WZ, et al. Analysis of volatile compounds of Cantonese sausage fermented by Macrococcus caseolyticus separated from Cantonese sausage [J]. Sci Technol Food Ind, 2011, 32(7): 207-213. [17] Bowman J. The genus Psychrobacter [M]. New York: Springer New York, 2006. [18]. [D]. :, 2012. Yuan XQ. Research on quality changes of stewed meat in seasoning [D]. Chongqing: Southwest University, 2012. [19],,. [J]., 2007, (10): 75-77. Wang CY, Ma WL, Jiang YN. Detection of pork freshness and synthetic evaluation of pork quality [J]. Acad Period Farm Prod Process, 2007, (10): 75-77. [20] Mataragas M, Drosinos E, Vaidanis A, et al. Development of a predictive model for spoilage of cooked cured meat products and its validation under constant and dynamic temperature storage conditions [J]. J Food Sci, 2006, 71(6): 157-167. [21] Metaxopoulos J, Mataragas M, Drosinos E. Microbial interaction in cooked cured meat products under vacuum or modified atmosphere at 4 [J]. J Appl Microbiol, 2002, 93(3): 363-373. [22]. [M]. :, 2008. Lei ZW. Applied handbook on monitoring microorganisms in meat an meat products [M]. Beijing: China Standard Press, 2008. [23]. [D]. :, 2006. Li MY. Study on the analysis of microbial ecology in chilled pork and shelf life predictive model [D]. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2006. [24] Borch E, Kant-Muermans M-L, Blixt Y. Bacterial spoilage of meat and cured meat products [J]. Int J Food Microbiol, 1996, 33(1): 103-120. [25],,. [J]., 2014, 35(6): 209-213. Chen R, Xu XL, Zhou GH. Estabishmeng of prediction model for the shelf-life of vacuum-packaged chicken breakfast sausage [J]. Food Sci, 2014, 35(6): 209-213. ( 责任编辑 : 姚菲 )
7, : 2903 作者简介 徐明生, 教授, 主要研究方向为食品科学 畜产加工 天然产物与功能性产品 E-mail: xmsjy@sina.com 谢萍, 主要研究方向为畜产加工 E-mail: WSXP1104@163.com 功能性食品微生物 专题征稿函, ;,,,, PUFA, 21,,,,,,, (1), (2), (3), (4), 2016 10,, 2016 9 10 E-mail 投稿方式 : : www.chinafoodj.com E-mail: jfoodsq@126.com 食品安全质量检测学报 编辑部