欢迎访问《中国农学通报》，
中国农学通报

中国农学通报 ›› 2023, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (31): 152-156.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0876

• 食品·营养·检测·安全 • 上一篇    下一篇

留树保鲜技术对橄榄果实品质的影响

邵雪花1(), 刘传滨2, 匡石滋1, 赖多1, 刘传和1, 贺涵1, 肖维强1()   

  1. 1 广东省农业科学院果树研究所/农业农村部南亚热带果树生物学与遗传资源利用重点实验室/广东省热带亚热带果树研究重点实验室，广州 510640
    2 潮州市果树研究所，广东潮州 521000
  • 收稿日期:2022-10-20 修回日期:2023-05-17 出版日期:2023-11-05 发布日期:2023-10-31
  • 通讯作者: 肖维强，男，1966年出生，广东潮州人，研究员，硕士，研究方向为果树栽培与新品种选育研究。E-mail：xwq6817@126.com。
  • 作者简介:

    邵雪花，女，1983年出生，宁夏石嘴山人，助理研究员，博士，研究方向为果树栽培与新品种选育研究。E-mail：。

  • 基金资助:
    广东省科技厅驻镇帮镇扶村农村科技特别员项目“橄榄新品种引进、绿色高效种植及保鲜技术应用推广”(KTP20210112); 广东省优稀水果现代农业产业技术体系创新团队项目“以农产品为单元的广东省现代农业产业技术体系创新团队建设项目”(2023KJ116); 广东省潮州市重大科技专项“优质橄榄新品种选育与应用示范”(20210106)

Effect of Tree Preservation Technology on Canarium album Quality

SHAO Xuehua1(), LIU Chuanbin2, KUANG Shizi1, LAI Duo1, LIU Chuanhe1, HE Han1, XIAO Weiqiang1()   

  1. 1 Institure of Fruit Tree Research, Guangdong Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of South Subtropical Fruit Biology and Genetic Resource Utilization, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs/Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of Tropical and Subtropical Fruit Tree Research, Guangzhou 510640
    2 Chaozhou Institute of Fruit Tree Research, Chaozhou, Guangdong 521000
  • Received:2022-10-20 Revised:2023-05-17 Published-:2023-11-05 Online:2023-10-31

RichHTML

2

PDF (PC)

26

摘要：

为确定橄榄果实留树保鲜最佳时间，判断橄榄果实留树保鲜技术的可行性，以‘锡1号’橄榄正季果（11月采摘）和留树保鲜果（12月采摘、1月采摘、4月采摘）为试验材料，采用微量法测定样品中的氨基酸（半胱氨酸、谷氨酸、赖氨酸、脯氨酸和羟脯氨酸）、营养成分（单宁、抗坏血酸、纤维素、水溶性果胶、总糖、蔗糖和还原糖）、功能性成分（原花青素、类黄酮、总酚和总抗氧能力）和酶活性（酸性磷酸酶，碱性磷酸酶、羧酸酯酶、过氧化物酶、过氧化氢酶、多酚氧化酶、乙酰胆碱酯酶和超氧化物歧化酶）共24个指标。‘锡1号’橄榄留树保鲜1个月与正季采摘相比，24个指标均无显著差异(P>0.05)；留树保鲜2个月，半胱氨酸、单宁、纤维素、原花青素、类黄酮、总抗氧能力、酸性磷酸酶、羧酸酯酶和过氧化物酶的含量均显著下降(P<0.05)，而抗坏血酸和水溶性果胶的含量却显著上升(P<0.05)，其他指标变化不显著；留树保鲜5个月，抗坏血酸、水溶性果胶、碱性磷酸酶和超氧化物歧化酶的含量均显著上升(P<0.05)，除脯氨酸外19个指标均呈显著下降趋势。‘锡1号’橄榄果实可留树保鲜1个月，其果实品质与正季采收无明显差异。

关键词: 橄榄, 留树保鲜, 果实品质, 果实口感

Abstract:

The paper aims to determine the optimal time for Canarium album to stay fresh, and to evaluate the feasibility of olive fruit tree preservation technology. Using ‘Xi No.1’ olive fruit in the season (harvested in November) and preserved fruit (picked in December, January, and April) as test materials, a total of 24 indicators of amino acids (cysteine, glutamic acid, lysine, proline and hydroxyproline), nutritional components (tannins, ascorbic acid, cellulose, water-soluble pectin, total sugar, sucrose and reducing sugars), functional components (proantho cyanidins, flavonoids, total phenols and total antioxidant capacity) and enzyme activity (acid phosphatase, alkaline phosphatase, carboxylates, peroxidases, catalases, polyphenol oxidases, acetylcholinesterase and superoxide dismutase) in the samples were determined by micro method. There were no significant difference in 24 indexes of ‘Xi No.1’ olive preserved for one month compared with that of picked in normal season (P>0.05). After two months of storage, the contents of cysteine, tannin, cellulose, proantho cyanidins, flavonoids, total antioxidant capacity, acid phosphatase, carboxylesterase, and peroxidase were significantly decreased (P<0.05), while the contents of ascorbic acid and water-soluble pectin were significantly increased (P<0.05), and other indexes had no significant changes. The contents of ascorbic acid, water-soluble pectin, alkaline phosphatase, and superoxide dismutase were significantly increased (P<0.05) after 5 months of tree preservation, while 19 indexes except proline were significantly decreased. The Canarium album of ‘Xi No.1’ can be kept fresh on tree for one month, and its fruit quality is not significantly different from that harvested in normal season.

Key words: Canarium album, on-tree storage, fruit quality, fruit taste