检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
机构地区:[1]北京联合大学生物化学工程学院,北京100023
出 处:《宁夏农林科技》2012年第7期88-89,共2页Journal of Ningxia Agriculture and Forestry Science and Technology
摘 要:对比微波辅助法和超声波提取法对黄芪水提液分子量分布特征的影响。结果表明:对于分子量为2 000~50 000的较大物质,微波辅助提取10 min的浸出量是超声辅助提取30 min的14.53倍;对于分子量大于50 000的物质,微波辅助提取10 min的浸出量仅占总浸出物的1.947%,而超声辅助提取50 min为14.933%。因此,微波辅助工艺在较大分子量有效成分的快速浸出和避免无效物质的浸出方面显著优于超声波辅助工艺。Contrastive experiments of microwave assisted extraction(MAE) and ultrasonic wave technology were carried out to analyze the effect of the different kinds of extraction technology on the characteristics of molecular weight distributing of solute in Leguminosae water extraction liquid.Results indicated that extracts with molecular weight 2 000-50 000 Dalton at 10 minutes by MAE technology was 14.53 times of that at 30 minutes by ultrasonic wave extraction;extracts with molecular weight bigger than 50 000 Dalton was 1.947% of total extracts at 10 minutes by MAE technology,but it was 14.933% of that at 50 minutes by ultrasonic wave extraction.Therefore,MAE technology was obviously better than ultrasonic wave technology on the fast extraction of valid components with bigger molecular weight and avoiding of invalid extracts.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.3