Effects of Sugar Impregnation Methods on Physicochemical Properties and Flavor Profiles of Prune Preserves Using GC-IMS and Electronic Tongue

Le résumé fourni par la source

Thermal impregnation (TI) is a traditional method of sugar infusion, but it has disadvantages such as long processing time and uneven sugar distribution. Therefore, developing sugar impregnation methods to enhance product flavor, nutritional value, and processing efficiency is critical for addressing potential quality loss and efficiency bottlenecks in traditional preserve processing technologies. This study took the TI process widely adopted in Xinjiang over the long term as a reference and systematically compared the effects of vacuum impregnation (VI) and ultrasonic-assisted impregnation (UI) on the flavor characteristics and physicochemical properties of plum preserves. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were identified using gas chromatography–ion mobility spectrometry (GC-IMS) coupled with multivariate analysis, while taste attributes were quantified via electronic tongue (E-tongue). Physicochemical parameters, including titratable acidity (TA), browning index (BI), color parameters (L*, a*, b*), total polyphenol content (TPC), total flavonoid content (TFC), and texture profile analysis (TPA), were also evaluated. GC-IMS identified 60 VOCs, predominantly comprising aldehydes (20), alcohols (10), ketones (6), acids (4), esters (3), furans (3), ketols (2), and unidentified compounds (12). The VI-treated samples exhibited distinct aromatic profiles, retaining a higher proportion of key volatile compounds. E-tongue results showed that VI significantly enhanced sourness, umami, and aftertaste complexity compared with UI and TI (p < 0.05). Physicochemical analyses showed that VI maximally preserved bioactive compounds, with a TPC of 1.23 ± 0.07 mg GAE/g and TFC of 17.55 ± 0.81 mg RE/g. Additionally, VI minimized enzymatic browning (BI: 0.37 ± 0.03), maintained color brightness (L*: 31.85 ± 1.56), maintained favorable textural properties (hardness: 187.63 ± 4.04 N), and retained the highest TA content (0.77 ± 0.05%). In contrast, UI and TI led to significant quality degradation, characterized by pronounced browning and texture deterioration: the BI values were 0.61 ± 0.02 (UI) and 0.83 ± 0.03 (TI), and hardness values were 176.53 ± 5.81 N (UI) and 156.25 ± 4.55 N (TI). These findings provide critical references for sugar impregnation techniques and a scientific basis for flavor regulation in prune preserve production.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.