酿酒科技
釀酒科技
양주과기
LIQUOR-MAKING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
2015年
6期
23-27,31
,共6页
林艳%马莹莹%张宿义%林秋%吴赫川%杨建刚
林豔%馬瑩瑩%張宿義%林鞦%吳赫川%楊建剛
림염%마형형%장숙의%림추%오혁천%양건강
米曲%糖化酶%白酒曲%国标%清酒曲%浸提法%测定法
米麯%糖化酶%白酒麯%國標%清酒麯%浸提法%測定法
미곡%당화매%백주곡%국표%청주곡%침제법%측정법
rice koji%glucoamylase%Baijiu(liquor) koji%national standard%Sake koji%extraction%detection
米曲在酿酒中是重要的原料之一,米曲的糖化酶活力对酒的质量有着重大的影响。首先比较了目前国内常用的几种糖化酶活力测定方法的测定结果,在此基础上,与日本清酒米曲糖化酶的测定方法进行了比较。结果表明,不同测定方法的结果差异较大,其中按白酒曲中糖化酶测定方法测定的结果为36~200 U/g曲;国标中酶制剂的糖化酶活力测定方法测得结果为144.98~318.95 U/g曲;DSN法测得结果为26.96~146.67 U/g曲;清酒米曲糖化酶活力测定法测得结果为392.04~419 U/g曲。样品量对国标中酶制剂的糖化酶测定方法的测定结果影响尤其明显,酶液提取温度30℃所测值几乎均大于40℃所测值。不同浸提方法的相同测定方法测得结果表明,用清酒米曲糖化酶的浸提法时,几种测定方法所测值均较其他两种浸提法所测值大;相同提取方法不同测定方法测得结果表明,几种测定法在不同的浸提法中均有一定的适应性。总之,清酒米曲糖化酶活力测定的方法最稳定,最能体现米曲中的糖化酶活力。另外,采用清酒米曲糖化酶浸提法(经透析)提取,DNS法测定,所得结果相对稳定,与其最接近。
米麯在釀酒中是重要的原料之一,米麯的糖化酶活力對酒的質量有著重大的影響。首先比較瞭目前國內常用的幾種糖化酶活力測定方法的測定結果,在此基礎上,與日本清酒米麯糖化酶的測定方法進行瞭比較。結果錶明,不同測定方法的結果差異較大,其中按白酒麯中糖化酶測定方法測定的結果為36~200 U/g麯;國標中酶製劑的糖化酶活力測定方法測得結果為144.98~318.95 U/g麯;DSN法測得結果為26.96~146.67 U/g麯;清酒米麯糖化酶活力測定法測得結果為392.04~419 U/g麯。樣品量對國標中酶製劑的糖化酶測定方法的測定結果影響尤其明顯,酶液提取溫度30℃所測值幾乎均大于40℃所測值。不同浸提方法的相同測定方法測得結果錶明,用清酒米麯糖化酶的浸提法時,幾種測定方法所測值均較其他兩種浸提法所測值大;相同提取方法不同測定方法測得結果錶明,幾種測定法在不同的浸提法中均有一定的適應性。總之,清酒米麯糖化酶活力測定的方法最穩定,最能體現米麯中的糖化酶活力。另外,採用清酒米麯糖化酶浸提法(經透析)提取,DNS法測定,所得結果相對穩定,與其最接近。
미곡재양주중시중요적원료지일,미곡적당화매활력대주적질량유착중대적영향。수선비교료목전국내상용적궤충당화매활력측정방법적측정결과,재차기출상,여일본청주미곡당화매적측정방법진행료비교。결과표명,불동측정방법적결과차이교대,기중안백주곡중당화매측정방법측정적결과위36~200 U/g곡;국표중매제제적당화매활력측정방법측득결과위144.98~318.95 U/g곡;DSN법측득결과위26.96~146.67 U/g곡;청주미곡당화매활력측정법측득결과위392.04~419 U/g곡。양품량대국표중매제제적당화매측정방법적측정결과영향우기명현,매액제취온도30℃소측치궤호균대우40℃소측치。불동침제방법적상동측정방법측득결과표명,용청주미곡당화매적침제법시,궤충측정방법소측치균교기타량충침제법소측치대;상동제취방법불동측정방법측득결과표명,궤충측정법재불동적침제법중균유일정적괄응성。총지,청주미곡당화매활력측정적방법최은정,최능체현미곡중적당화매활력。령외,채용청주미곡당화매침제법(경투석)제취,DNS법측정,소득결과상대은정,여기최접근。
Rice koji is an important raw material in liquor-making and its glucoamylase activity (GC) has a major impact on liquor quality. In this paper, several commonly-used GC detecting methods at home were compared and then they were compared with Japanese Sake GC detect-ing method. The results showed that, there was great difference in GC detecting results by different GC detecting method (36~200 U/g by us-ing Baijiu(liquor) GC detecting method, 144.98~318.95 U/g by national standard GC detecting method, 26.96~146.67 U/g by 3,5-dinitrosal-icylic acid (DNS) method, and 392.04~419 U/g by Sake GC detecting method). Sample quantity had especially evident impact on the detect-ing results by national standard GC detecting method. For all methods,GC detecting results by 30℃extraction was generally higher than those by 40℃ extraction. Glucoamylase extracted by different method but detected by the same method demonstrated Sake extraction method had higher GC detecting result than the other two extraction methods. Glucoamylase extracted by the same method but detected by different meth-od demonstrated all detecting methods had good adaptability in different extraction ways. In a word, Sake detecting method could obtain the most stable detecting results reflecting true glucoamylase activity. In addition, Sake extraction method combined with DNS detecting method could also obtain relatively stable detecting results.