Comprehensive Evaluation of Texture Quality of Kelp Bleached by Calcium Salt Based on Principal Component Analysis
-
摘要: 为对漂烫海带质构品质进行客观综合评价，以不同含量钙盐漂烫处理后的海带样品的硬度、弹性、咀嚼性、内聚性、胶着性、恢复性6项质构指标进行分析，并结合模糊感官评价，运用主成分分析法构建海带品质的评价方法。结果表明：漂烫海带的质构指标参数与感观得分呈二次函数关系，存在感观得分最高时的质构指标值Xmax。将质构指标参数转化为与感官品质呈正相关的质构指标指数，经主成分分析，6项质构指标可提取主成分2个，累积方差贡献率达93.988%，以各主成分的方差贡献率与总方差贡献率的比值作为主成分权重系数，计算出综合得分，归一化转化为质构综合指数。该方法的评价结果能综合反映海带质构品质。Abstract: In order to objectively evaluate the texture quality of kelp, six texture parameters including hardness, elasticity, chewiness, cohesiveness, adhesiveness and recovery of kelp samples bleached by different concentrations of calcium salts were analyzed. The fuzzy sensory evaluation and principal component analysis were used to construct the evaluation method of kelp quality. The results showed that there was a quadratic function relationship between texture parameter and sensory score, and there were several quality indicators Xmax exist when sensory score at the highest level. The parameters of texture were transformed into texture index positively correlated with sensory quality. According to the principal component analysis, two main components were extracted from the six quality indicators, the total variance could reach to 93.988%. The ratio of the variance contribution of each principal component to the total variance contribution was taken as the principal component weighting coefficient to calculate the composite score, then it was converted into the texture composite index by normalization. The results of this method could comprehensively reflect the quality of kelp texture.
-
Key words:
- kelp /
- blanching /
- texture quality /
- principal component analysis /
- comprehensive evaluation
-
表 1 感官评分标准
Table 1. Criteria for sensory evaluation
项目 很好v1 较好v2 一般v3 差v4 质地u1 藻体均匀，组织紧密，质地脆嫩 藻体均匀，组织紧密，质地较脆嫩 藻体不均匀，组织过紧密或松弛，质地略硬或略软 藻体不均匀，组织过紧密或松弛，质地过硬 色泽u2 均匀，表面有光泽，不暗淡 均匀，表面有光泽，光泽度略差 不均匀，色泽暗淡，光泽度略差 不均匀，色泽很暗淡，光泽度很差 气味u3 藻香味浓郁，无异味 藻香味明显，无异味 有轻微藻香味，有异味 藻香味不浓，异味严重 口味u4 无苦涩味，海带味正常 无苦涩味，海带味道略不正常 略有苦涩味，海带味道不正常 苦涩味明显，有异味 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 各等级的轶值
Table 2. Proliferation value of each grade
优秀 优良 合格 不合格 分值 10-7 7-5 5-3 3-1 轶 8.5 6 4 2
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 海带品质测定结果
Table 3. Determination results of kelp
序号 硬度/g 弹性 内聚性 咀嚼性/g 恢复性 胶着性/g 感官评分 1 522.44±50.91 0.84±0.03 0.49±0.04 214.49±5.93 0.26±0.04 255.97±14.28 5.01 2 867.94±50.35 0.84±0.01 0.56±0.01 406.89±17.21 0.29±0.01 483.00±24.40 6.44 3 973.19±23.26 0.82±0.01 0.60±0.01 478.94±4.62 0.23±0.01 580.77±0.46 6.89 4 1087.31±105.38 0.78±0.00 0.50±0.01 419.52±34.69 0.19±0.01 537.84±44.48 7.95 5 807.75±135.53 0.73±0.05 0.45±0.01 265.79±57.87 0.16±0.01 363.48±55.45 5.14 6 852.13±191.53 0.74±0.05 0.49±0.01 300.59±44.17 0.19±0.01 412.60±86.87 4.96 7 638.11±19.62 0.69±0.02 0.42±0.01 184.76±7.86 0.13±0.01 266.05±6.81 4.21 8 396.56±8.51 0.82±0.01 0.48±0.03 154.08±8.69 0.19±0.01 188.46±9.92 3.53 9 852.13±50.97 0.84±0.01 0.58±0.02 414.34±6.19 0.27±0.00 493.39±15.68 6.75 10 959.69±90.84 0.87±0.02 0.57±0.02 478.48±35.94 0.28±0.01 548.67±42.80 7.29 11 1025.81±15.68 0.84±0.01 0.57±0.01 492.21±5.40 0.27±0.01 585.98±3.26 7.80 12 1013.68±48.02 0.83±0.01 0.57±0.03 480.60±4.09 0.23±0.02 581.37±1.04 7.04 13 1017.44±21.11 0.84±0.00 0.58±0.00 496.88±15.67 0.23±0.00 590.11±23.51 5.75 14 1061.03±75.32 0.97±0.01 0.60±0.01 616.88±33.74 0.23±0.00 635.95±37.78 5.70 15 723.01±37.10 0.90±0.04 0.65±0.01 427.74±33.70 0.28±0.01 473.46±28.13 6.39 16 1049.24 ±57.79 0.85±0.01 0.56±0.00 498.08±22.51 0.28±0.01 586.64±36.76 6.83 17 1147.06±15.61 0.83±0.03 0.54±0.01 510.04±13.38 0.27±0.00 613.06±2.67 7.31 18 1257.44±16.69 0.83±0.01 0.62±0.01 640.45±9.06 0.31±0.00 775.88±15.63 7.60 19 871.37±4.52 0.76±0.01 0.49±0.01 322.99±2.98 0.21±0.01 423.94±10.21 5.31
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 描述性统计参数
Table 4. Descriptive statistical parameters
指标 最大值 最小值 平均值 标准差 变异系数
/%硬度/g 1257.44 396.56 901.23 215.30 23.89 弹性 0.97 0.69 0.82 0.06 7.71 内聚性 0.65 0.42 0.54 0.06 11.51 咀嚼性/g 640.45 154.08 410.72 136.96 33.34 恢复性 0.31 0.13 0.24 0.05 19.91 胶着性/g 775.88 188.46 494.56 147.42 29.81
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 质构参数及感官评价关系的模型
Table 5. The model of relationship between texture parameters and sensory evaluation
特性指标 模型 R2 F P Xmax 硬度X1 Y=-3.342×10-6X12+0.01 X1+0.504 0.676 13.555 0.001 1496.11 内聚性X2 Y=-95.494X22+114.734X2-27.603 0.477 7.286 0.006 0.60 咀嚼性X3 Y=-2.281×10-5X32+0.025X3+0.284 0.739 22.594 ＜0.001 548.01 恢复性X4 Y=-17.852X42+24.332X4+1.483 0.400 5.336 0.017 0.681 胶着性X5 Y=-9.600×10-6X52+0.016X5+0.921 0.714 19.979 ＜0.001 833.33
下载: 导出CSV
表 6 海带品质信息主成分特征值、方差贡献率、累积贡献率
Table 6. The main components characteristic value, variance contribution rate, cumulative contribution rate of kelp quality information
成分 初始 提取平方和载入 旋转平方和载入 特征值 贡献率/% 累积贡献率/% 特征值 贡献率/% 累积贡献率/% 特征值 贡献率/% 累积贡献率/% 1 3.990 79.808 79.808 3.990 79.808 79.808 2.734 54.671 54.671 2 0.709 14.180 93.988 0.709 14.180 93.988 1.966 39.317 93.988 3 0.218 4.356 98.344 4 0.073 1.453 99.796 5 0.010 0.204 100.00
下载: 导出CSV
表 7 主成分载荷矩阵
Table 7. Component matrix
项目 成分载荷矩阵 旋转成分载荷矩阵 得分系数矩阵 1 2 1 2 1 2 硬度指数Y1 0.871 -0.455 0.966 0.182 0.569 -0.369 内聚性指数Y2 0.902 0.273 0.540 0.773 -0.061 0.442 咀嚼性指数Y3 0.963 -0.094 0.815 0.522 0.272 0.045 恢复性指数Y4 0.747 0.608 0.210 0.940 -0.384 0.790 胶着性指数Y5 0.966 -0.221 0.895 0.424 0.383 -0.095
下载: 导出CSV
表 8 海带的成分得分、综合得分和质构综合指数
Table 8. Factor score, composite score and texture composite index of kelp
处理 F1 F2 F 质构综
合指数1 -2.189 0.796 -0.940 36.01 2 -0.519 1.087 0.153 66.45 3 0.609 0.226 0.449 74.70 4 1.101 -1.467 0.027 62.95 5 -0.222 -1.666 -0.826 39.20 6 -0.112 -1.111 -0.530 47.44 7 -0.793 -2.194 -1.379 23.78 8 -2.242 -0.293 -1.427 22.46 9 -0.379 0.961 0.181 67.25 10 0.128 0.870 0.438 74.41 11 0.443 0.708 0.554 77.62 12 0.759 -0.053 0.420 73.89 13 0.800 0.036 0.481 75.59 14 0.928 0.175 0.613 79.26 15 -0.788 1.106 0.004 62.32 16 0.530 0.582 0.552 77.58 17 0.952 0.118 0.603 79.01 18 1.169 0.857 1.039 91.13 19 -0.176 -0.738 -0.411 50.75
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 王庆佳, 李智, 郑宝东, 等.海带酥性饼干的研制及血糖生成指数评价[J].食品研究与开发, 2016, 37(7):184-188. http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/spyjykf201607045 [2] 江晓宁, 陈钏杰, 沈宇丹, 等.海带的加工技术与研究现状[J].北京农业, 2015, (4):22. http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/beijny201512015 [3] 李伟, 郜海燕, 陈杭君, 等.基于主成分分析的不同品种杨梅果实综合品质评价[J].中国食品学报, 2017, 17(6):161-171. http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zgspxb201706022 [4] 公丽艳, 孟宪军, 刘乃侨, 等.基于主成分与聚类分析的苹果加工品质评价[J].农业工程学报, 2014, 30(13):276-285. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2014.13.034 [5] 王晶晶, 董福, 冯叙桥, 等. TPA质构分析在凌枣贮藏时间判定中的应用[J].中国食品学报, 2017, 17(3):218-224. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Journal/B-B6-ZGSP-2017-03.htm [6] 区靖祥, 邱建德.多元数据的统计分析方法[M].北京:中国农业科学技术出版社, 2002. [7] 张瑞莲, 尹军峰, 袁海波, 等.基于主成分分析法研究茶叶加工工艺对茶饮料汤色稳定性的影响[J].食品科学, 2010, 31(13):82-87. http://www.cqvip.com/QK/91206X/201602/668026506.html [8] PRAVDOVA V, BOUCON C, JONG S D, et al. Three-way principal component analysis applied to food analysis:an example[J]. Analytica Chimica Acta, 2002, 462(2):133-148. doi: 10.1016/S0003-2670(02)00318-5 [9] 杨文婷, 李俊丽, 孔丰, 等.基于主成分分析法对冷冻滩羊肉品质评价模型的构建[J].食品工业科技, 2017, 38(9):300-303. http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/spgykj201709061 [10] 李俊芳, 马永昆, 张荣, 等.不同果桑品种成熟桑椹的游离氨基酸主成分分析和综合评价[J].食品科学, 2016, 37(14):132-137. doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-20161423 [11] HE L, XU X, GUO S. Rheological and textural properties of full-fat and low-fat cheese analogues[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2007, 23(5):32-41. [12] 李玉珍, 肖怀秋.模糊数学评价法在食品感官评价中的应用[J].中国酿造, 2016, 35(5):16-19. doi: 10.11882/j.issn.0254-5071.2016.05.004 [13] 翁敏劼, 陈君琛, 赖谱富, 等.模糊数学法在即食杏鲍菇评价中的应用[J].福建农业学报, 2016, 31(3):293-296. http://www.fjnyxb.cn/CN/abstract/abstract2894.shtml [14] 霍红.模糊数学在食品感官评价质量控制方法中的应用[J].食品科学, 2004, 25(6):185-188. http://www.wenkuxiazai.com/doc/4379955f650e52ea5518987f.html [15] 黄梅花. 速冻调理米饭套餐配菜品质控制技术的研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2014. http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10335-1014174691.htm [16] TODA J, WADA T, YASUMATSU K, et al. Application of principal component analysis to food texture measurements[J]. Journal of Texture Studies, 1971, 2(2):207-219. doi: 10.1111/jts.1971.2.issue-2 [17] D'AGOSTINO R B. Principal Components Analysis[M]. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics[J]. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2010:153. [18] 刘美迎, 李小龙, 梁茁, 等.基于模糊数学和聚类分析的鲜食葡萄品种综合品质评价[J].食品科学, 2015, 36(13):57-64. doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201513012 [19] WATTANACHANT S, BENJAKUL S, LEDWARD D A. Effect of heat treatment on changes in texture, structure and properties of Thai indigenous chicken muscle[J]. Food Chemistry, 2005, 93(2):337-348. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2004.09.032 [20] 郭意明, 丛爽, 邓惠馨, 等.鱼糜和马铃薯粉对饼干质构和风味的影响[J].食品科学, 2017, 38(20):96-102. doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201720014 [21] 伍婧, 王远亮, 李珂, 等.基于主成分分析的不同醒发条件下挂面的特征质构[J].食品科学, 2016, 37(21):119-123. doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201621021 [22] 陈中爱, 刘永翔, 陈朝军, 等.彩色马铃薯馒头的制备及质构特性主成分分析[J].食品科技, 2016, 37(9):163-166. http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=sspj201609043&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ [23] VIRGINIA K C, DUNCAN I H, PAUL L H. Assessment of objective texture measurements for characterising and predicting the sensory quality of squash (Cucurbita maxima)[J]. New Zealand Journal of Crop & Horticultural Science, 2006, 34(4):369-379. https://es.scribd.com/doc/124744247/WL-Minuscoli -
