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
作 者:付中香 王雪 李晓奇 史冬燕[1] FU Zhong-xiang;WANG Xue;LI Xiao-qi;SHI Dong-yan(The College of Agriculture and Bioengineering,Heze University,Heze Shangdong 274015;Heze Guyu Peony Bio-technology Company Co.,Ltd.)
机构地区:[1]菏泽学院农业与生物工程学院,山东菏泽274015 [2]菏泽谷雨牡丹生物科技有限公司
出 处:《现代农业科技》2020年第8期235-236,共2页Modern Agricultural Science and Technology
基 金:2017年国家级大学生创新项目(201710455260);菏泽学院教改重点项目(2018103)。
摘 要:本文通过感官评定、叶片物质含量分析比较了先萎蔫后烘干和直接烘干2种牡丹叶茶制作方法。结果表明,牡丹叶片先经过萎蔫处理,叶片中的总黄酮含量、总酚类含量和可溶性蛋白含量均高于直接烘干样品,但差异不显著(P>0.05)。直接烘干处理叶片中可溶性糖含量为45.88%,而萎蔫处理的样品为36.02%,二者差异显著(P<0.05)。为了保存牡丹叶较多有益物质,牡丹叶茶制作应先萎蔫1 d,再经55℃低温热干燥。This paper compared two different preparation methods which one method was first wilting and then drying,the other was direct drying on leaf tea of Paeonia suffruticosa by sensory evaluation and leaf material content.The results showed that the content of total flavonoids,total phenols and soluble protein in the leaves of P.suffruticosa after wilting treatment were higher than that of the direct drying,but the difference was not significant(P>0.05).The content of soluble sugar in the leaves of the direct drying treatment was 45.88%,while the content of soluble sugar in the leaves was 36.02%after wilting treatment,and the difference between the two methods were significant(P<0.05).In order to preserve more beneficial substances in the leaves of P.suffruticosa,the leaf tea was firstly wilting 1d and then drying at 55℃.
分 类 号:TS272.4[农业科学—茶叶生产加工]
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:216.73.216.222