基于响应面法的乳酸菌发酵藜麦秸秆工艺条件优化

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2022.09.06

浙江农业学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (9): 1866-1876.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2022.09.06

基于响应面法的乳酸菌发酵藜麦秸秆工艺条件优化

吕敬(), 吴治勇, 郭晓农, 冯玉兰, 卢建雄, 柴薇薇()

西北民族大学生命科学与工程学院,甘肃兰州 730030

收稿日期:2021-08-20 出版日期:2022-09-25 发布日期:2022-09-30
通讯作者: 柴薇薇
作者简介:*柴薇薇,E-mail: xiayunchaiweiwei@163.com
吕敬(1999—),女,吉林吉林人,本科生,研究方向为单胃动物营养。E-mail: lvjingz0z@163.com
基金资助:
西北民族大学2021年进入人才科研项目(xbmuyjrc2021013);西北民族大学2021年实验室开放项目(SYSKF-2021088);西北民族大学中央高校基本科研业务经费创新团队培育项目(31920200038)

Optimization of fermented quinoa straw with lactic acid bacteria by response surface methodology

LYU Jing(), WU Zhiyong, GUO Xiaonong, FENG Yulan, LU Jianxiong, CHAI Weiwei()

College of Life Science and Engineering, Northwest Minzu University, Lanzhou 730030, China

Received:2021-08-20 Online:2022-09-25 Published:2022-09-30
Contact: CHAI Weiwei

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为优化藜麦秸秆的乳酸菌发酵工艺条件,选取发酵时间、乳酸菌添加量和秸秆含水量3个因素,利用单因素试验和响应面分析探究不同发酵条件对发酵后藜麦秸秆感官品质和粗蛋白质含量的影响。响应面分析结果显示,3个因素对发酵后的藜麦秸秆粗蛋白质含量的影响从大到小依次为乳酸菌添加量>秸秆含水量>发酵时间,最佳工艺参数为发酵时间24.5 d,乳酸菌添加量12 mg·kg^-1,秸秆含水量60%。在此条件下,发酵后的藜麦秸秆粗蛋白质含量为(6.93± 0.05)%。该结果可以为藜麦秸秆发酵饲料的开发提供技术支撑。

关键词: 藜麦秸秆, 乳酸菌, 响应面分析, 粗蛋白质含量

Abstract:

In this study, the fermentation time, addition amount of lactic acid bacteria and water content of straw were selected as three factors. The effects of different fermentation conditions on crude protein content of fermented quinoa straw were explored via single-factor experiments and response surface methodology. Response surface analysis results showed that the effects of 3 factors on crude protein content of fermented quinoa straw decreased as addition amount of lactic acid bacteria>water content of straw>fermentation time, and the optimized fermentation parameters were as follows: fermentation time of 24.5 d, addition amount of lactic acid bacteria of 12 mg·kg^-1, and the water content of straw of 60%. Under the optimal conditions, the crude protein content of the fermented quinoa straw was (6.93±0.05)%. These results could provide basis for the development of quinoa straw feed.

Key words: quinoa straw, lactic acid bacteria, response surface methodology, crude protein content

中图分类号:

S816.53

吕敬, 吴治勇, 郭晓农, 冯玉兰, 卢建雄, 柴薇薇. 基于响应面法的乳酸菌发酵藜麦秸秆工艺条件优化[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(9): 1866-1876.

LYU Jing, WU Zhiyong, GUO Xiaonong, FENG Yulan, LU Jianxiong, CHAI Weiwei. Optimization of fermented quinoa straw with lactic acid bacteria by response surface methodology[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(9): 1866-1876.

图/表 11

参考文献 42

[1]	肖正春, 张广伦. 藜麦及其资源开发利用[J]. 中国野生植物资源, 2014, 33(2): 62-66.
	XIAO Z C, ZHANG G L. Development and utilization of Chenopodium quinoa Willd[J]. Chinese Wild Plant Resources, 2014, 33(2): 62-66. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[2]	JACOBSEN S E. Adaptation of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) to Northern European agriculture: studies on developmental pattern[J]. Euphytica, 1997, 96: 41-48. DOI URL
[3]	马洪鑫, 刘粟心, 杨许花, 等. 藜麦蛋白质提取工艺优化[J]. 农业科技与信息, 2021(6): 52-56.
	MA H X, LIU S X, YANG X H, et al. Optimization of protein extraction process from quinoa[J]. Agricultural Science-Technology and Information, 2021(6): 52-56. (in Chinese)
[4]	黄杰, 杨发荣. 藜麦在甘肃的研发现状及前景[J]. 甘肃农业科技, 2015(1): 49-52.
	HUANG J, YANG F R. Research and development status and prospect of quinoa in Gansu[J]. Gansu Agricultural Science and Technology, 2015(1): 49-52. (in Chinese)
[5]	CARLSON D, FERNANDEZ J A, POULSEN H D, et al. Effects of quinoa hull meal on piglet performance and intestinal epithelial physiology[J]. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 2012, 96(2): 198-205. DOI PMID
[6]	陈光, 孙旸, 王刚, 等. 藜麦全植株的综合利用及开发前景[J]. 吉林农业大学学报, 2018, 40(1): 1-6.
	CHEN G, SUN Y, WANG G, et al. Comprehensive utilization and development prospect of whole-plant Chenopodium quinoa[J]. Journal of Jilin Agricultural University, 2018, 40(1): 1-6. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[7]	张慧玲. 物理与生物处理对藜麦秸秆结构和营养组分的影响[D]. 天津: 天津科技大学, 2018.
	ZHANG H L. Effects of physical and biological treatments on structure and nutrition components of quinoa straw[D]. Tianjin: Tianjin University of Science & Technology, 2018. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[8]	魏玉明, 郝怀志, 杨发荣, 等. 不同添加剂对藜麦秸秆裹包青贮品质的影响[J]. 甘肃农业科技, 2019(12): 38-43.
	WEI Y M, HAO H Z, YANG F R, et al. Effects of different additives on quality of silage wrapped in quinoa straw[J]. Gansu Agricultural Science and Technology, 2019(12): 38-43. (in Chinese)
[9]	高祎妍. 玉米秸秆发酵菌剂的筛选优化及对黄贮效果影响研究[D]. 长春: 吉林农业大学, 2019.
	GAO Y Y. Study on screening and optimizing of corn straw fermentation agent and its effect on yellow storage[D]. Changchun: Jilin Agricultural University, 2019. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[10]	徐晓东, 吴立坡, 姜宁, 等. 复合菌酶制剂对玉米秸秆黄贮发酵品质的影响[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2021, 57(9): 187-191.
	XU X D, WU L P, JIANG N, et al. Effect of compound bacterial enzyme preparation on fermentation quality of corn straw[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2021, 57(9): 187-191. (in Chinese)
[11]	司华哲, 南韦肖, 刘晗璐, 等. 乳酸菌发酵促进剂对裹包黄贮玉米秸发酵品质影响研究[C]// 中国畜牧兽医学会. 中国畜牧兽医学会动物微生态学分会第五届第十三次全国学术研讨会论文集. 北京: 中国畜牧兽医学会, 2018.
[12]	青贮饲料质量评定标准(试行)[J]. 中国饲料, 1996(21): 5-7.
	Standard for quality evaluation of silage (Trial)[J]. China Feed, 1996(21): 5-7. (in Chinese)
[13]	张琴萍, 邢宝, 周帮伟, 等. 藜麦饲用研究进展与应用前景分析[J]. 中国草地学报, 2020, 42(2): 162-168.
	ZHANG Q P, XING B, ZHOU B W, et al. Research progress and application prospects of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) as feed source[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2020, 42(2): 162-168. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[14]	蒋丽君. 酶法辅助提取藜麦秸秆蛋白及其食品特性研究[D]. 合肥: 安徽农业大学, 2020.
	JIANG L J. Enzymatic auxiliary extraction of quinoa straw protein and its food features[D]. Hefei: Anhui Agricultural University, 2020. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[15]	刘海燕, 王秀飞, 王彦靖, 等. 玉米秸秆和菊芋秸秆混合青贮的研究[J]. 中国奶牛, 2017(12): 15-18.
	LIU H Y, WANG X F, WANG Y J, et al. Study on mixed silage of corn straw and Jerusalem artichoke stalk as feed sources[J]. China Dairy Cattle, 2017(12): 15-18. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[16]	穆麟, 李顺, 曾宁波, 等. 添加糖蜜、乳酸菌制剂对籽粒苋与稻秸混合青贮品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(2): 482-487.
	MU L, LI S, ZENG N B, et al. Effect of adding molasses or lactic acid bacteria on quality of mixed silage of amaranth and rice straws[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2019, 27(2): 482-487. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[17]	付志慧, 格根图, 任秀珍, 等. 不同晾晒时间对菊芋青贮品质的影响[J]. 草原与草业, 2019, 31(1): 39-44.
	FU Z H, GE G T, REN X Z, et al. Effects of different drying time on the quality of Jerusalem artichoke silage[J]. Grassland and Prataculture, 2019, 31(1): 39-44. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[18]	张宁. 单一和复合乳酸菌制剂对水稻秸青贮品质和营养价值的影响[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北农业大学, 2013.
	ZHANG N. The effect of adding single and compound Lactobacillus preparation on rice straw silage quality and nutritional value[D]. Harbin: Northeast Agricultural University, 2013. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[19]	代素贞, 刘晓燕. 添加乳酸菌对青贮饲料品质的提升及奶牛健康的影响[J]. 中国奶牛, 2011(11): 42-46.
	DAI S Z, LIU X Y. Effects of adding lactic acid bacteria on quality of silage and health of dairy cows[J]. China Dairy Cattle, 2011(11): 42-46. (in Chinese)
[20]	魏晓强, 钟启文, 张广楠, 等. 添加微生物菌剂对菊芋秸秆发酵的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2020, 48(6): 246-251.
	WEI X Q, ZHONG Q W, ZHANG G N, et al. Effects of microbial inoculants on fermentation of Jerusalem artichoke straw[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 48(6): 246-251. (in Chinese)
[21]	赵金鹏, 赵杰, 李君风, 等. 不同添加剂对水稻秸秆青贮发酵品质和结构性碳水化合物组分的影响[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 2019, 42(1): 152-159.
	ZHAO J P, ZHAO J, LI J F, et al. Effect of different additives on fermentation quality and structural carbohydrates compositions of rice straw silage[J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University, 2019, 42(1): 152-159. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[22]	MCDONALD P. The biochemistry of silage[M]. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981.
[23]	祝睿文, 张玲, 乔立红, 等. 乳酸菌发酵苹果红枣复合饮料的研制[J]. 现代食品, 2021(11): 79-85.
	ZHU R W, ZHANG L, QIAO L H, et al. Preparation of apple and jujube compound beverage fermented by lactic acid bacteria[J]. Modern Food, 2021(11): 79-85. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[24]	琚泽亮, 赵桂琴, 柴继宽. 温度和乳酸菌添加剂对燕麦青贮发酵品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草原与草坪, 2021, 41(2): 53-59.
	JU Z L, ZHAO G Q, CHAI J K. Effects of temperature and lactic acid bacteria additives on fermentation quality and aerobic stability of oat silage[J]. Grassland and Turf, 2021, 41(2): 53-59. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[25]	熊素玉, 姚新奎, 谭小海, 等. 不同温度及pH条件对乳酸菌生长影响的研究[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2006, 43(6): 533-538.
	XIONG S Y, YAO X K, TAN X H, et al. Effects of different temperatures and pH on the growth of lactic acid bacteria[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2006, 43(6): 533-538. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[26]	吴江涛. 乳酸菌对玉米秸秆营养成分和发酵品质的影响[J]. 饲料研究, 2020, 43(7): 103-105.
	WU J T. Effect of lactic acid bacteria additives on nutritional components and fermentation quality of corn stalks[J]. Feed Research, 2020, 43(7): 103-105. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[27]	张慧玲, 王志伟, 周中凯. 不同汽爆处理对藜麦秸秆化学组成及纤维结构的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2018, 20(7): 105-112. DOI
	ZHANG H L, WANG Z W, ZHOU Z K. Influence of different steam explosion treatments on chemical composition and fiber structure of quinoa straw[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2018, 20(7): 105-112. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI
[28]	张志登, 蒋再慧, 韩雅慧, 等. 乳酸菌及酸处理对秸秆生物发酵饲料的化学成分及in vitro甲烷生成的影响[J]. 黑龙江八一农垦大学学报, 2016, 28(6): 8-15.
	ZHANG Z D, JIANG Z H, HAN Y H, et al. Lactic acid bacteria and acid treatment of straw fermentation feed effect of chemical composition and in vitro methane production[J]. Journal of Heilongjiang Bayi Agricultural University, 2016, 28(6): 8-15. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[29]	马迪, 梁慧慧, 邵文强, 等. 不同乳酸菌添加剂对青贮黑麦草和青贮玉米发酵产物和有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2014, 22(6): 1365-1370.
	MA D, LIANG H H, SHAO W Q, et al. Fermentation product and aerobic stability of whole crop corn and wilted Italian ryegrass silage inoculated without and with different lactic acid bacteria[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2014, 22(6): 1365-1370. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[30]	李苗苗, 谢华德, 王立超, 等. 不同水分及乳酸菌处理对玉米秸秆黄贮发酵指标和体外干物质消失率的影响[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2018(19): 133-137.
	LI M M, XIE H D, WANG L C, et al. Effects of different treatments of moisture and Lactobacillus on the fermentation quality of straw silage and the loss rate of dry matter in vitro[J]. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2018(19): 133-137. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[31]	张淼, 谈重芳, 吕好新, 等. 不同水分含量玉米秸秆附生乳酸菌的分离鉴定研究[C]// 中国畜牧兽医学会. 中国畜牧兽医学会2013年学术年会论文集. 北京: 中国畜牧兽医学会, 2013.
[32]	顾拥建, 丁成龙, 占今舜, 等. 乳酸菌、纤维素酶和糖蜜对青贮稻秸秆发酵品质的影响[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2017(20): 211-213.
	GU Y J, DING C L, ZHAN J S, et al. Effects of lactic acid bacteria, cellulase and molasses on fermentation quality of silage rice[J]. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2017(20): 211-213. (in Chinese)
[33]	覃方锉, 赵桂琴, 焦婷, 等. 含水量及添加剂对燕麦捆裹青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2014, 23(6): 119-125.
	QIN F C, ZHAO G Q, JIAO T, et al. Effects of different moisture contents and additives on the quality of baled oat silage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(6): 119-125. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[34]	贾戌禹, 程俊康, 辛国荣, 等. 晾干及青贮时间对高水分多花黑麦草青贮效果的影响研究[J]. 草学, 2019(6): 13-19.
	JIA X Y, CHENG J K, XIN G R, et al. Effect of drying and silage time on fresh Italian ryegrass silage[J]. Journal of Grassland and Forage Science, 2019(6): 13-19. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[35]	贾朋辉. 发酵饲料用乳酸菌培养条件及保藏工艺的研究[D]. 无锡: 江南大学, 2009.
	JIA P H. Studies on culture conditions of Lactobacillus and preservation process for producing fermentation feed[D]. Wuxi: Jiangnan University, 2009. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[36]	庄益芬, 安宅一夫, 张文昌. 生物添加剂和含水率对紫花苜蓿和猫尾草青贮发酵品质的影响[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2007, 38(12): 1394-1400.
	ZHUANG Y F, ATAKU K, ZHANG W C. Effects of biological additive and moisture content on fermentation quality of alfalfa and timothy silages[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 2007, 38(12): 1394-1400. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[37]	仁宫. 试验设计与分析[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 1998.
[38]	王永菲, 王成国. 响应面法的理论与应用[J]. 中央民族大学学报(自然科学版), 2005, 14(3): 236-240.
	WANG Y F, WANG C G. The application of response surface methodology[J]. Journal of the Central University for Nationalities (Natural Science Edition), 2005, 14(3): 236-240. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[39]	单春乔, 陈桂芳, 冯柳柳, 等. 响应面法优化肉鸭日粮非淀粉多糖酶酶谱的研究[J]. 饲料工业, 2018, 39(10): 22-27.
	SHAN C Q, CHEN G F, FENG L L, et al. Optimizing the non-starch polysaccharide enzymes with response surface method in duck feed[J]. Feed Industry, 2018, 39(10): 22-27. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[40]	毕玉花. 大麦体外酶解条件筛选及酶解大麦在肉鸡日粮中的应用[D]. 广州: 华南农业大学, 2018.
	BI Y H. In vitro enzymatic hydrolysis of barley and application of enzymolysis barley in broiler diets[D]. Guangzhou: South China Agricultural University, 2018. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[41]	马健. 乳酸菌发酵麸皮对仔猪生产性能的影响[D]. 邯郸: 河北工程大学, 2021.
	MA J. Effect of lactic acid bacteria fermented wheat bran on performance of piglets[D]. Handan: Hebei University of Engineering, 2021. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[42]	王巍杰, 王彩喆, 李慧敏, 等. 响应面法优化粪肠球菌固态发酵牛粪生物活性饲料的研究[J]. 华北理工大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 42(4): 134-140.
	WANG W J, WANG C Z, LI H M, et al. Optimization of solid state cow dung biological fermentation for Enterococcus faecalis by response surface method[J]. Journal of North China University of Science and Technology (Natural Science Edition), 2020, 42(4): 134-140. (in Chinese with English abstract)

发酵时间 Fermentation time/d	气味 Smell	质地 Texture	色泽 Colour	pH	感官评定等级 Sensory grade
5	淡酸味Light sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	褐黄色Tawny	4.9	一般General
10	淡酸味Light sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	褐黄色Tawny	4.5	良好Good
15	甘酸味Sweet and sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	褐黄色Tawny	4.3	良好Good
20	甘酸味Sweet and sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	亮黄色Bright yellow	3.8	优良Excellent
25	甘酸味Sweet and sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	亮黄色Bright yellow	3.8	优良Excellent
30	甘酸味Sweet and sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	亮黄色Bright yellow	3.6	优良Excellent

发酵时间 Fermentation time/d	气味 Smell	质地 Texture	色泽 Colour	pH	感官评定等级 Sensory grade
5	淡酸味Light sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	褐黄色Tawny	4.9	一般General
10	淡酸味Light sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	褐黄色Tawny	4.5	良好Good
15	甘酸味Sweet and sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	褐黄色Tawny	4.3	良好Good
20	甘酸味Sweet and sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	亮黄色Bright yellow	3.8	优良Excellent
25	甘酸味Sweet and sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	亮黄色Bright yellow	3.8	优良Excellent
30	甘酸味Sweet and sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	亮黄色Bright yellow	3.6	优良Excellent

乳酸菌添加量 Addition amount of lactic acid bacteria/(mg·kg^-1)	气味 Smell	质地 Texture	色泽 Color	pH	感官评定等级 Sensory grade
2	淡酸味Light sour taste	松散硬Loose and hard	暗黄色Dark yellow	5.0	一般General
4	淡酸味Light sour taste	松散硬Loose and hard	褐黄色Tawny	4.8	良好Good
6	淡酸味Light sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	褐黄色Tawny	4.8	良好Good
8	淡酸味Light sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	亮黄色Bright yellow	4.2	良好Good
10	甘酸味Sweet and sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	亮黄色Bright yellow	3.8	优良Excellent
12	甘酸味Sweet and sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	亮黄色Bright yellow	3.5	优良Excellent

乳酸菌添加量 Addition amount of lactic acid bacteria/(mg·kg^-1)	气味 Smell	质地 Texture	色泽 Color	pH	感官评定等级 Sensory grade
2	淡酸味Light sour taste	松散硬Loose and hard	暗黄色Dark yellow	5.0	一般General
4	淡酸味Light sour taste	松散硬Loose and hard	褐黄色Tawny	4.8	良好Good
6	淡酸味Light sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	褐黄色Tawny	4.8	良好Good
8	淡酸味Light sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	亮黄色Bright yellow	4.2	良好Good
10	甘酸味Sweet and sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	亮黄色Bright yellow	3.8	优良Excellent
12	甘酸味Sweet and sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	亮黄色Bright yellow	3.5	优良Excellent

秸秆含水量 Water content of straw/%	气味 Smell	质地 Texture	色泽 Color	pH	感官评定等级 Sensory grade
70	酒酸味Wine sour taste	略黏连Slightly adherent	亮黄色Bright yellow	4.5	一般General
60	甘酸味Sweet and sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	亮黄色Bright yellow	3.8	优良Excellent
50	甘酸味Sweet and sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	亮黄色Bright yellow	4.0	优良Excellent
40	淡酸味Light sour taste	松散软Loose and soft	褐黄色tawny	4.5	良好Good
30	淡酸味Light sour taste	松散硬Loose and hard	暗黄色Dark yellow	5.0	一般General
20	淡酸味Light sour taste	松散硬Loose and hard	暗黄色Dark yellow	5.0	一般General

基于响应面法的乳酸菌发酵藜麦秸秆工艺条件优化

Optimization of fermented quinoa straw with lactic acid bacteria by response surface methodology

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 11

参考文献 42

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

序号No.	A	B	C	Y/%
1	-1	-1	0	5.49±0.05
2	1	-1	0	5.90±0.05
3	-1	1	0	6.51±0.08
4	1	1	0	6.45±0.04
5	-1	0	-1	5.42±0.02
6	1	0	-1	5.82±0.01
7	-1	0	1	6.08±0.01
8	1	0	1	5.86±0.02
9	0	-1	-1	5.46±0.01
10	0	1	-1	6.35±0.03
11	0	-1	1	5.71±0.03
12	0	1	1	6.53±0.01
13	0	0	0	6.68±0.03
14	0	0	0	6.70±0.04
15	0	0	0	6.55±0.02
16	0	0	0	6.64±0.03
17	0	0	0	6.66±0.02

[1]	潘旭婕, 刘瑞玲, 邓尚贵, 吴伟杰, 陈杭君, 郜海燕. 乳酸菌发酵杨梅果酱工艺优化及其风味成分分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(7): 1502-1512.
[2]	贾洋洋, 聂枞宁, 罗兴禹, 杨凯辉, 何春雷. 外源酶辅助发酵加工藏茶的工艺研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(9): 1720-1729.
[3]	江宇航, 辛维岗, 张棋麟, 邓先余, 王峰, 林连兵. 霉变饲用玉米真菌的分离、鉴定与乳酸菌素对其的防霉抑菌效果[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(7): 1283-1291.
[4]	忻晓庭, 刘大群, 张程程, 吴敏, 陈登高, 章检明. 我国特色发酵蔬菜降解亚硝酸盐菌株的筛选鉴定及应用[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(2): 335-345.
[5]	杨颖, 施迎春, 邢建荣, 刘哲, 郑美瑜, 陆胜民. 葡萄柚精油“除萜赋香”工艺的优化研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(11): 2128-2136.
[6]	桂雪儿, 王志, 李思婷, 贺濛初, 朱杰, 冯士彬, 吴金节. 鸡源复合益生菌对青年白羽肉杂鸡免疫球蛋白和Toll样受体通路的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(9): 1609-1614.
[7]	王明哲, 杨颖, 唐伟敏, 刘哲, 孙培龙, 陆胜民. 戊糖乳杆菌YY112产胞外多糖的发酵工艺条件优化[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(2): 327-336.
[8]	张文平, 王清, 黄诗宸, 吴佩佳, 程新. 乳酸菌胞外多糖对水稻生长及土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(1): 130-138.
[9]	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.
[10]	钱仲仓，杨泉灿*. 添加乳酸菌对茭白叶青贮品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2015, 27(9): 1541-.
[11]	陈新峰1，2，张治国2，王君虹2，周利亘2，*. 响应面法优化微波固相合成毛虾肽螯合钙工艺[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2015, 27(8): 1473-.
[12]	邹盈1，葛杭丽2，柳华贵2，孟祥河2，*. 产叶酸菌株的鉴定及其膨化糙米汁发酵工艺条件的优化[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2015, 27(4): 665-.
[13]	应晨，阮川芬，汤逸飞，章华伟*. 内生产酶溶杆菌R\\|2\\|1发酵工艺优化[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2015, 27(2): 220-.
[14]	王玲丽，滕红梅*，弓苗苗. 响应面分析法优化超声提取连翘花黄色素工艺研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2014, 26(4): 961-.
[15]	王楠;*;王伟;周虹;唐昌权. 甲鱼蛋白抗氧化肽的中性蛋白酶酶解条件优化[J]. , 2014, 26(2): 0-303308.