浙江农业学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (5): 893-906.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2021.05.15
副干酪乳杆菌固态发酵枣粉工艺优化及其品质分析
张家萌1(
), 魏嘉雯2, 张惠玲1,*()
- 1.宁夏大学 食品与葡萄酒学院,宁夏 银川 750021
2.宁夏食品微生物应用技术与安全控制重点实验室,宁夏 银川 750021
-
收稿日期:2020-10-01出版日期:2021-05-25发布日期:2021-05-25 -
通讯作者:张惠玲 -
作者简介:*张惠玲,E-mail:zhl5792@163.com
张家萌(1995—),女,宁夏中宁人,硕士研究生,主要从事食品发酵研究。E-mail:823160903@qq.com -
基金资助:宁夏回族自治区重点研发计划(2017BY073)
Process optimization of solid-state fermented jujube powder by Lactobacillus paracasei and its quality analysis
ZHANG Jiameng1(), WEI Jiawen2, ZHANG Huiling1,*()
- 1. College of Food and Wine, Ningxia University, Yinchuan 750021, China
2. Key Laboratory of Food Microbiology Application Technology and Safety Control in Ningxia, Yinchuan 750021, China
-
Received:2020-10-01Online:2021-05-25Published:2021-05-25 -
Contact:ZHANG Huiling
摘要：
为制得一种活菌数高且稳定性较好的红枣益生菌粉,以红枣为主料,副干酪乳杆菌(Lactobacillus paracasei)TK1501为发酵菌株进行固态发酵,通过单因素试验和响应面试验优化发酵工艺。基于优化后的工艺制作红枣益生菌粉,对其理化指标、微生物安全性进行检测,并开展综合评价。结果表明,最佳发酵工艺为料水比1∶0.9、豆粉添加量24%、麦麸添加量9%、接种量10%、发酵时间24 h,最佳干燥方式为-50 ℃冷冻干燥24 h。在此条件下制备的样品,活菌数含量为7.21×108 CFU·g-1,粗多糖、乳酸、苹果酸、柠檬酸、游离氨基酸、γ-氨基丁酸含量较发酵前提高,且口感酸甜,枣香浓郁,综合评价良好,各项理化指标和微生物安全指标均符合相应标准,在(37±2)℃的条件下贮藏90 d,样品基本保持稳定。
中图分类号:
引用本文
张家萌, 魏嘉雯, 张惠玲. 副干酪乳杆菌固态发酵枣粉工艺优化及其品质分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(5): 893-906.
ZHANG Jiameng, WEI Jiawen, ZHANG Huiling. Process optimization of solid-state fermented jujube powder by Lactobacillus paracasei and its quality analysis[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(5): 893-906.
表1 变量编码值
Table 1 Coding values of experiment variables
| 水平Level | A/% | B/% | C/% | D/h |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -1 | 23 | 7 | 8 | 20 |
| 0 | 25 | 10 | 10 | 24 |
| 1 | 27 | 13 | 12 | 28 |
表1 变量编码值
Table 1 Coding values of experiment variables
| 水平Level | A/% | B/% | C/% | D/h |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -1 | 23 | 7 | 8 | 20 |
| 0 | 25 | 10 | 10 | 24 |
| 1 | 27 | 13 | 12 | 28 |
表2 感官评价赋分表
Table 2 Requirement and scores of sensory evaluation
| 感官项目 Sensory item | 要求 Requirement | 分值 Score |
|---|---|---|
| 色泽 Color and lustre | 黑褐色,色泽不一致 Dark brown, inconsistent color | 0~4 |
| 黑褐色,色泽分布均匀 Dark brown, uniform color distribution | 5~9 | |
| 红褐色,色泽分布均匀 Reddish brown, uniform color distribution | 10~15 | |
| 组织状态 Texture status | 颗粒感强,原料分布不均匀 Strong graininess, uneven distribution of raw materials | 0~4 |
| 有少量颗粒感,原料分布均匀 A small amount of graininess, uniform distribution of raw materials | 5~15 | |
| 颗粒感弱,粉质细腻,原料分布均匀 Weak grain, fine powder, uniform distribution of raw materials | 16~25 | |
| 酸甜度 Sweetness and acidity | 滋味一般,过酸或过甜 The taste is mediocre, too sour or too sweet | 0~10 |
| 滋味较淡,酸甜适中 The taste is lighter, moderately sweet and sour | 11~20 | |
| 滋味适中,酸甜协调 The taste is moderate, coordination of sweet and sour | 21~30 | |
| 气味 Smell | 枣香味不明显,有异味 Jujube flavor is not obvious, smelly | 0~5 |
| 有较淡枣香味,较淡发酵香 Weak jujube aroma, light incense fermentation | 6~15 | |
| 有枣香味、明显的发酵香和酸香味 Obvious jujube flavor with fermented sweet and sour flavor | 16~30 |
表2 感官评价赋分表
Table 2 Requirement and scores of sensory evaluation
| 感官项目 Sensory item | 要求 Requirement | 分值 Score |
|---|---|---|
| 色泽 Color and lustre | 黑褐色,色泽不一致 Dark brown, inconsistent color | 0~4 |
| 黑褐色,色泽分布均匀 Dark brown, uniform color distribution | 5~9 | |
| 红褐色,色泽分布均匀 Reddish brown, uniform color distribution | 10~15 | |
| 组织状态 Texture status | 颗粒感强,原料分布不均匀 Strong graininess, uneven distribution of raw materials | 0~4 |
| 有少量颗粒感,原料分布均匀 A small amount of graininess, uniform distribution of raw materials | 5~15 | |
| 颗粒感弱,粉质细腻,原料分布均匀 Weak grain, fine powder, uniform distribution of raw materials | 16~25 | |
| 酸甜度 Sweetness and acidity | 滋味一般,过酸或过甜 The taste is mediocre, too sour or too sweet | 0~10 |
| 滋味较淡,酸甜适中 The taste is lighter, moderately sweet and sour | 11~20 | |
| 滋味适中,酸甜协调 The taste is moderate, coordination of sweet and sour | 21~30 | |
| 气味 Smell | 枣香味不明显,有异味 Jujube flavor is not obvious, smelly | 0~5 |
| 有较淡枣香味,较淡发酵香 Weak jujube aroma, light incense fermentation | 6~15 | |
| 有枣香味、明显的发酵香和酸香味 Obvious jujube flavor with fermented sweet and sour flavor | 16~30 |
表3 综合评价标准
Table 3 Criteria of comprehensive evaluation
| 一级指标 Indicator | 二级指标 Index | 优 Excellent | 好 Preferably | 较好 Good | 一般 Commonly | 较差 Poor | 差 Bad |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 组织形态Texture status | 溶解性Solubility | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| 均一状态Uniform state | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
| 外观Appearance | 外观色度Chroma | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| 香气浓郁度Aroma intensity | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
| 香气Aroma | 香气纯正度Aroma purity | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| 香气协调度Aroma harmony | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
| 口感Texture | 酸度Acidity | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| 甜度Sweetness | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
| 顺滑度Smoothness | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
| 口感协调度Taste coordination | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
| 总体评价Overall evaluation | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
表3 综合评价标准
Table 3 Criteria of comprehensive evaluation
| 一级指标 Indicator | 二级指标 Index | 优 Excellent | 好 Preferably | 较好 Good | 一般 Commonly | 较差 Poor | 差 Bad |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 组织形态Texture status | 溶解性Solubility | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| 均一状态Uniform state | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
| 外观Appearance | 外观色度Chroma | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| 香气浓郁度Aroma intensity | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
| 香气Aroma | 香气纯正度Aroma purity | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| 香气协调度Aroma harmony | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
| 口感Texture | 酸度Acidity | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| 甜度Sweetness | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
| 顺滑度Smoothness | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
| 口感协调度Taste coordination | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
| 总体评价Overall evaluation | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
图1 麦麸添加量对产品活菌数和感官评价得分的影响
Fig.1 Effect of wheat bran content on viable count and sensory evaluation score of products
图1 麦麸添加量对产品活菌数和感官评价得分的影响
Fig.1 Effect of wheat bran content on viable count and sensory evaluation score of products
图2 豆粉添加量对产品活菌数和感官评价得分的影响
Fig.2 Effect of soybean flour content on viable count and sensory evaluation score of products
图2 豆粉添加量对产品活菌数和感官评价得分的影响
Fig.2 Effect of soybean flour content on viable count and sensory evaluation score of products
图3 料水比对产品活菌数和感官评价得分的影响
Fig.3 Effect of ratio of material to water on viable count and sensory evaluation score of products
图3 料水比对产品活菌数和感官评价得分的影响
Fig.3 Effect of ratio of material to water on viable count and sensory evaluation score of products
图4 发酵时间对产品活菌数和感官评价得分的影响
Fig.4 Effect of fermentation time on viable count and sensory evaluation score of products
图4 发酵时间对产品活菌数和感官评价得分的影响
Fig.4 Effect of fermentation time on viable count and sensory evaluation score of products
图5 接种量对产品活菌数和感官评价得分的影响
Fig.5 Effect of inoculation amount on viable count and sensory evaluation score of products
图5 接种量对产品活菌数和感官评价得分的影响
Fig.5 Effect of inoculation amount on viable count and sensory evaluation score of products
图6 干燥方式对产品含水量、活菌数和感官评价得分的影响
Fig.6 Effect of drying method on water content, viable count and sensory evaluation score of products
图6 干燥方式对产品含水量、活菌数和感官评价得分的影响
Fig.6 Effect of drying method on water content, viable count and sensory evaluation score of products
表4 响应面试验设计与结果
Table 4 Design and results of response surface experiment
| 编号Number | A/% | B/% | C/% | D/h | R1/(108 CFU·g-1) | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.4 | 83.39 |
| 2 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 5.5 | 83.74 |
| 3 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 0 | 6.3 | 85.05 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 5.1 | 79.41 |
| 5 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 5.8 | 83.53 |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.7 | 87.73 |
| 7 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4.3 | 76.84 |
| 8 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5.3 | 89.64 |
| 9 | 0 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 5.3 | 71.28 |
| 10 | 0 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 4.8 | 84.73 |
| 11 | -1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 4.1 | 81.79 |
| 12 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 5.5 | 80.73 |
| 13 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5.2 | 68.54 |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 4.5 | 82.6 |
| 15 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 4.6 | 71.42 |
| 16 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 3.9 | 82.52 |
| 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.9 | 91.04 |
| 18 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4.5 | 74.04 |
| 19 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 6.9 | 83.82 |
| 20 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5.4 | 72.03 |
| 21 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3.7 | 66.92 |
| 22 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6.1 | 75.38 |
| 23 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 5.4 | 80.41 |
| 24 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 5.7 | 78.31 |
| 25 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 4.4 | 87.53 |
| 26 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5.8 | 83.42 |
| 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.0 | 88.64 |
| 28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.7 | 86.51 |
| 29 | -1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4.2 | 69.36 |
表4 响应面试验设计与结果
Table 4 Design and results of response surface experiment
| 编号Number | A/% | B/% | C/% | D/h | R1/(108 CFU·g-1) | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.4 | 83.39 |
| 2 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 5.5 | 83.74 |
| 3 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 0 | 6.3 | 85.05 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 5.1 | 79.41 |
| 5 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 5.8 | 83.53 |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.7 | 87.73 |
| 7 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4.3 | 76.84 |
| 8 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5.3 | 89.64 |
| 9 | 0 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 5.3 | 71.28 |
| 10 | 0 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 4.8 | 84.73 |
| 11 | -1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 4.1 | 81.79 |
| 12 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 5.5 | 80.73 |
| 13 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5.2 | 68.54 |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 4.5 | 82.6 |
| 15 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 4.6 | 71.42 |
| 16 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 3.9 | 82.52 |
| 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.9 | 91.04 |
| 18 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4.5 | 74.04 |
| 19 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 6.9 | 83.82 |
| 20 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5.4 | 72.03 |
| 21 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3.7 | 66.92 |
| 22 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6.1 | 75.38 |
| 23 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 5.4 | 80.41 |
| 24 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 5.7 | 78.31 |
| 25 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 4.4 | 87.53 |
| 26 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5.8 | 83.42 |
| 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.0 | 88.64 |
| 28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.7 | 86.51 |
| 29 | -1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4.2 | 69.36 |
图7 不同因素对活菌数影响的三维曲面图
Fig.7 Three-dimensional surface plot of factors on viable count of products
图7 不同因素对活菌数影响的三维曲面图
Fig.7 Three-dimensional surface plot of factors on viable count of products
图8 因素交互作用对活菌数影响的响应面图
Fig.8 Response surface plot of interactions of factors on viable count of products
图8 因素交互作用对活菌数影响的响应面图
Fig.8 Response surface plot of interactions of factors on viable count of products
图9 不同因素对感官评价得分影响的三维曲面图
Fig.9 Three-dimensional surface plot of factors on sensory evaluation score of products
图9 不同因素对感官评价得分影响的三维曲面图
Fig.9 Three-dimensional surface plot of factors on sensory evaluation score of products
图10 因素交互作用对感官评价得分影响的响应面图
Fig.10 Response surface plot of interactions of factors on sensory evaluation score of products
图10 因素交互作用对感官评价得分影响的响应面图
Fig.10 Response surface plot of interactions of factors on sensory evaluation score of products
表5 稳定性试验检测结果
Table 5 Test results of stability experiment
| t/d | 含水量 Water content/% | 活菌数 Viable count/ (108 CFU·g-1) | pH |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 6.53±0.23 | 6.50±0.21 | 4.75+0.02 |
| 15 | 6.58±0.16 | 6.13±0.14 | 4.77±0.02 |
| 30 | 6.62±0.29 | 5.46±0.17 | 4.73±0.03 |
| 45 | 6.65±0.31 | 3.86±0.27 | 4.69±0.04 |
| 60 | 6.64±0.41 | 1.20±0.16 | 4.63±0.05 |
| 75 | 6.65±0.13 | 0.93±0.02 | 4.52±0.02 |
| 90 | 6.71±0.25 | 0.72±0.03 | 4.45±0.03 |
表5 稳定性试验检测结果
Table 5 Test results of stability experiment
| t/d | 含水量 Water content/% | 活菌数 Viable count/ (108 CFU·g-1) | pH |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 6.53±0.23 | 6.50±0.21 | 4.75+0.02 |
| 15 | 6.58±0.16 | 6.13±0.14 | 4.77±0.02 |
| 30 | 6.62±0.29 | 5.46±0.17 | 4.73±0.03 |
| 45 | 6.65±0.31 | 3.86±0.27 | 4.69±0.04 |
| 60 | 6.64±0.41 | 1.20±0.16 | 4.63±0.05 |
| 75 | 6.65±0.13 | 0.93±0.02 | 4.52±0.02 |
| 90 | 6.71±0.25 | 0.72±0.03 | 4.45±0.03 |
表6 发酵前后基质中质量指标的变化
Table 6 Changes of quality indicators before and after fermentation
| 指标 Indicator | 发酵前含量 Content before fermentation | 发酵后含量 Content after fermentation |
|---|---|---|
| 粗多糖 | 210.03 | 244.83 |
| Crude polysaccharide/(mg·g-1) | ||
| 葡萄糖Glucose/(mg·g-1) | 156.93 | 90.86 |
| 蔗糖Sucrose/(mg·g-1) | 32.43 | 16.58 |
| 果糖Fructose/(mg·g-1) | 62.26 | 62.34 |
| 乙醇Ethanol/(g·g-1) | — | — |
| 乳酸Lactic acid/(mg·g-1) | 0 | 35.93 |
| 苹果酸Malic acid/(mg·g-1) | 7.22 | 14.72 |
| 柠檬酸Citric acid/(mg·g-1) | 8.21 | 13.09 |
| 富马酸Fumaric acid/(μg·g-1) | 9.2 | 9.1 |
| 乙酸Acetic acid/(μg·g-1) | — | 24.5 |
| GABA/(μg·g-1) | 138.64 | 224.75 |
| 游离氨基酸 | 300.75 | 407.50 |
| Free amino acid/(μg·g-1) | ||
| 氯化钠Sodium chloride/(μg·g-1) | 2.5 | 2.1 |
| 总酸Total acid/(mg·g-1) | 23.6 | 41.5 |
| 膳食纤维Dietary fiber/(mg·g-1) | 238.4 | 276.2 |
| 黄酮Flavone/(μg·g-1) | 2 304.7 | 2 147.6 |
| 总酚Total phenols/(mg·g-1) | 6.11 | 4.87 |
表6 发酵前后基质中质量指标的变化
Table 6 Changes of quality indicators before and after fermentation
| 指标 Indicator | 发酵前含量 Content before fermentation | 发酵后含量 Content after fermentation |
|---|---|---|
| 粗多糖 | 210.03 | 244.83 |
| Crude polysaccharide/(mg·g-1) | ||
| 葡萄糖Glucose/(mg·g-1) | 156.93 | 90.86 |
| 蔗糖Sucrose/(mg·g-1) | 32.43 | 16.58 |
| 果糖Fructose/(mg·g-1) | 62.26 | 62.34 |
| 乙醇Ethanol/(g·g-1) | — | — |
| 乳酸Lactic acid/(mg·g-1) | 0 | 35.93 |
| 苹果酸Malic acid/(mg·g-1) | 7.22 | 14.72 |
| 柠檬酸Citric acid/(mg·g-1) | 8.21 | 13.09 |
| 富马酸Fumaric acid/(μg·g-1) | 9.2 | 9.1 |
| 乙酸Acetic acid/(μg·g-1) | — | 24.5 |
| GABA/(μg·g-1) | 138.64 | 224.75 |
| 游离氨基酸 | 300.75 | 407.50 |
| Free amino acid/(μg·g-1) | ||
| 氯化钠Sodium chloride/(μg·g-1) | 2.5 | 2.1 |
| 总酸Total acid/(mg·g-1) | 23.6 | 41.5 |
| 膳食纤维Dietary fiber/(mg·g-1) | 238.4 | 276.2 |
| 黄酮Flavone/(μg·g-1) | 2 304.7 | 2 147.6 |
| 总酚Total phenols/(mg·g-1) | 6.11 | 4.87 |
图11 综合评价结果雷达图
Fig.11 Radar chart of comprehensive evaluation results
图11 综合评价结果雷达图
Fig.11 Radar chart of comprehensive evaluation results
| [1] |
BENGOA A A, LLAMAS M G, IRAPORDA C, et al. Impact of growth temperature on exopolysaccharide production and probiotic properties of Lactobacillus paracasei strains isolated from kefir grains[J]. Food Microbiology, 2018,69:212-218.
DOI URL |
| [2] |
KIM W K, JANG Y J, SEO B, et al. Administration of Lactobacillus paracasei strains improves immunomodulation and changes the composition of gut microbiota leading to improvement of colitis in mice[J]. Journal of Functional Foods, 2019,52:565-575.
DOI URL |
| [3] |
VAN HOORDE K, VAN LEUVEN I, DIRINCK P, et al. Selection, application and monitoring of Lactobacillus paracasei strains as adjunct cultures in the production of Gouda-type cheeses[J]. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 2010,144(2):226-235.
DOI URL |
| [4] |
POVEDA J M, NIETO-ARRIBAS P, SESEÑA S, et al. Volatile composition and improvement of the aroma of industrial Manchego cheese by using Lactobacillus paracasei subsp. paracasei as adjunct and other autochthonous strains as starters[J]. European Food Research and Technology, 2014,238(3):485-494.
DOI URL |
| [5] |
SUNTHORNTHUMMAS S, DOI K, RANGSIRUJI A, et al. Isolation and characterization of Lactobacillus paracasei LPC and phage ΦT25 from fermented milk[J]. Food Control, 2017,73:1353-1361.
DOI URL |
| [6] | 刘定斌. 中卫市红枣产业发展存在的问题及对策[J]. 宁夏农林科技, 2017,58(9):39. |
| LIU D B. Problems and countermeasures of jujube industry in Zhongwei City[J]. Ningxia Journal of Agriculture and Forestry Science and Technology, 2017,58(9):39.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [7] | 李冰. 麸皮红枣汁乳酸发酵饮料生产工艺研究[D]. 西安: 陕西师范大学, 2011. |
| LI B. Study on the production technology of bran red jujube juice lactic acid fermented beverage[D]. Xi’an: Shaanxi Normal University, 2011. | |
| [8] | 隋文杰, 刘锐, 吴涛, 等. 固态发酵在食品加工中的应用研究进展[J]. 生物产业技术, 2018 (3):13-23. |
| SUI W J, LIU R, WU T, et al. Application and research progress of solid-state fermentation in food processing fields[J]. Biotechnology & Business, 2018 (3):13-23.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [9] |
SANGSURASAK P, MITCHELL D A. Validation of a model describing two-dimensional heat transfer during solid-state fermentation in packed bed bioreactors[J]. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 1998,60(6):739-749.
DOI URL |
| [10] | 王元熠, 陈国刚. 红枣粉固体饮料配方的研制[J]. 食品研究与开发, 2019,49(17):130-135. |
| WANG Y Y, CHEN G G. Preparation of solid beverage of red jujube powder[J]. Food Research and Development, 2019,49(17):130-135.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [11] |
FANG C, DU H, ZHENG X J, et al. Solid-state fermented Chinese alcoholic beverage (baijiu) and ethanol resulted in distinct metabolic and microbiome responses[J]. The FASEB Journal, 2019,33(6):7274-7288.
DOI URL |
| [12] | 王勇, 戴丽媛, 费腾, 等. 高效液相色谱串联蒸发光散射检测器测定梨中单双糖含量的研究[J]. 农业与技术, 2019,39(15):14-17. |
| WANG Y, DAI L Y, FEI T, et al. Determination of monosaccharides in pear by series evaporative light scattering detector with high performance liquid chromatograph[J]. Agriculture and Technology, 2019,39(15):14-17.(in Chinese) | |
| [13] | 耿文超, 关今韬, 程申, 等. 副干酪乳杆菌的功能特性及其应用研究进展[J]. 生物加工过程, 2018,16(4):1-7. |
| GENG W C, GUAN J T, CHENG S, et al. Progress in function characterization and application of Lactobacillus paracasei[J]. Chinese Journal of Bioprocess Engineering, 2018,16(4):1-7.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [14] | 王毕妮. 红枣多酚的种类及抗氧化活性研究[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2011. |
| WANG B N. Kinds of phenolic compounds in jujube and antioxidant activity[D]. Yangling: Northwest A & F University, 2011. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [15] | 王忠合, 王军, 张菁, 等. 不同处理方式对芡实中游离氨基酸和碳水化合物的含量及淀粉消化率的影响[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2020,46(5):166-173. |
| WANG Z H, WANG J, ZHANG J, et al. Effect of processing on content of free amino acid, carbohydrate and in vitro digestibility of starch in Euryales ferox[J]. Food and Fermentation Industries, 2020,46(5):166-173.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [16] | 焦中高, 张春岭, 刘杰超, 等. 碱提红枣多糖与水提红枣多糖生物活性的比较研究[J]. 食品安全质量检测学报, 2015,6(10):4181-4187. |
| JIAO Z G, ZHANG C L, LIU J C, et al. Comparison of bioactivities of polysaccharides from Zizyphus jujuba fruit extracted with hot water and alkaline solution[J]. Journal of Food Safety & Quality, 2015,6(10):4181-4187.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [17] |
HUANG J Y, LIAO J S, QI J R, et al. Structural and physicochemical properties of pectin-rich dietary fiber prepared from Citrus peel[J]. Food Hydrocolloids, 2021,110:106140.
DOI URL |
| [18] | 赵梅. 枣渣膳食纤维酶法改性工艺及相关性质研究[D]. 无锡: 江南大学, 2014. |
| ZHAO M. Study on enzymatic modification and related properties of dietary fiber of jujube residue[D]. Wuxi: Jiangnan University, 2014. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [19] |
WANG K D, ZHANG H W, FENG J S, et al. Antibiotic resistance of lactic acid bacteria isolated from dairy products in Tianjin, China[J]. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 2019,1:100006.
DOI URL |
| [20] | 卢上飞, 谭显东, 黄凡, 等. 响应面法优化三七渣固态发酵产红色素工艺[J]. 食品工业科技, 2020,41(16):97-101. |
| LU S F, TAN X D, HUANG F, et al. Processing optimization of red pigment produced from Panax notoginseng residues in solid state fermentation by response surface methodology[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2020,41(16):97-101.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [21] | 姜天亮, 龚红英, 钱勇, 等. 基于响应面法的U形件弯曲成形回弹优化[J]. 锻压技术, 2020,45(1):63-68. |
| JIANG T L, GONG H Y, QIAN Y, et al. Optimization on bending springback of U-shaped parts based on response surface method[J]. Forging & Stamping Technology, 2020,45(1):63-68.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [22] | 刘欣, 刘芸, 刘波, 等. 不同乳酸菌荔枝汁发酵特性及其贮藏稳定性的研究[J]. 食品安全质量检测学报, 2019,10(11):3522-3529. |
| LIU X, LIU Y, LIU B, et al. Study on fermentation characteristics and storage stability of litchi juice with different lactic acid bacteria[J]. Journal of Food Safety & Quality, 2019,10(11):3522-3529.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [23] |
POLAK-BERECKA M, CHOMA A, WASKO A, et al. Physicochemical characterization of exopolysaccharides produced by Lactobacillus rhamnosus on various carbon sources [J]. Carbohydrate Polymers, 2015,117:501-509.
DOI URL |
| [24] | 吴重德. 干酪乳杆菌抵御酸胁迫的生理机制解析[D]. 无锡: 江南大学, 2012. |
| WU C D. Study on the physiological mechanisms of acid stress tolerance in Lactobacillus casei[D]. Wuxi: Jiangnan University, 2012. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [25] |
TRAN Q N M, MIMOTO H, KOYAMA M, et al. Lactic acid bacteria modulate organic acid production during early stages of food waste composting[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2019,687:341-347.
DOI URL |
| [26] | 余偲, 赵育, 张晶, 等. 短乳杆菌发酵对红枣汁品质的影响[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2019,45(17):144-150. |
| YU S, ZHAO Y, ZHANG J, et al. Effects of Lactobacillus brevis fermentation on the quality of jujube juice[J]. Food and Fermentation Industries, 2019,45(17):144-150.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [27] | GÄNZLE M G, LOPONEN J, GOBBETTI M. Proteolysis in sourdough fermentations: mechanisms and potential for improved bread quality[J]. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 2008,19(10):513-521. |
| [1] | 李园成, 孙宏, 吴逸飞, 姚晓红, 沈琦, 汤江武. 固态发酵棉籽仁的营养成分及其抗氧化活性[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(4): 610-615. |
| [2] | 郑雅燕, 杨颖, 陆胜民, 曹亚裙. 白萝卜发酵饮料菌株筛选、鉴定及品质分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2017, 29(3): 506-514. |
| [3] | 张灵通，李寿宁，孙三民*. 基于纹理南疆红枣外观品质应用研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2016, 28(6): 1089-. |
| [4] | 吴逸飞, 孙宏, 李园成, 王新, 柳永, 姚晓红, 汤江武. 微生物固态发酵对饲料营养特性的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2016, 28(12): 2014-2020. |
| [5] | 楼秀玉;张晨;张小美;沈雷;顾青*. 抗烟曲霉乳酸菌菌株的筛选、鉴定及特性初步研究[J]. , 2013, 25(1): 0-181. |
| [6] | 孙 宏;汤江武;葛向阳;*;. 响应面法优化菜粕固态发酵工艺的研究[J]. , 2009, 21(3): 0-306. |
| [7] | 许尧兴;李艳丽;许少春;柳永 . 米曲霉ZW-06在固态基质上产高活性中性蛋白酶发酵条件研究[J]. , 2008, 20(6): 0-456. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||
