• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The Kasetsart Journal >Comparative Evaluation Of Total Solids, Freezing Pointand Specific Gravity Of Raw Milk Using An Ultrasonic milk Analyzer Versus Standard Methods
【24h】

Comparative Evaluation Of Total Solids, Freezing Pointand Specific Gravity Of Raw Milk Using An Ultrasonic milk Analyzer Versus Standard Methods

机译：使用超声乳分析仪和标准方法对生乳的总固体，凝固点和比重进行比较评估

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Forty five composite raw milk samples were each subdivided into five portions and then combined with 8, 4 or 0% water, and 2 or 5% whole milk powder (WMP). Ten samples randomly selected from each subsample were comparatively analyzed for their solid content using an ultrasonic milk analyzer (UMA) versus the standard sand-pan oven dry method. Similarly, fifteen samples from each subsample were analyzed for freezing point using the UMA versus a cryoscope. All milk subsamples were also analyzed for specific gravity using the UMA and a lactometer versus the standard gravimetric method. The solid content of the respective milk subsamples averaged 12.61, 12.93, 13.84, 15.31 and 17.52 % while those produced by the UMA averaged 12.81, 13.41, 13.69, 16.02 and 18.82 %. On average, the UMA readings provided a difference of 0.64 % higher (P<0.05) milk solids than the standard method. Mean freezing points of the milk subsamples analyzed by the two methods were -0.512, -0.531, -0.542, -0.651 and -0.799℃ for the UMA and -0.493, -0.508, -0.549, -0.662 and -0.854°C for the cryoscope, respectively. The mean specific gravity determined by the three analysis methods increased (P<0.05) from 1.0265 to 1.0278, 1.0292, 1.0340 and 1.0407 for the five respective milk subsamples. The UMA as well as the lactometer consistently provided higher (P<0.05) specific gravity values than the standard oven dry method for all milk subsamples. However, on average, a difference of only 0.0014 specific gravity was observed between the UMA and the standard method. Contrary to this, a greater difference (P<0.05) of 0.0043 specific gravity was evident between the lactometer and the standard method. It was therefore considered advisable that the UMA instruments be regularly calibrated with the local raw milk standard. It was also recommended that the accuracy of lactometers be evaluated and their specific gravity readings be adjusted accordingly.
机译：将45个复合原料奶样品分别细分为五个部分，然后与8、4或0％的水和2或5％的全脂奶粉（WMP）合并。使用超声牛奶分析仪（UMA）与标准沙锅烘箱干燥法比较从每个子样品中随机选择的十个样品的固体含量。同样，使用UMA与冷冻镜对每个子样本的15个样本的凝固点进行了分析。还使用UMA和泌乳仪对比标准重量法对所有牛奶子样品的比重进行了分析。各个牛奶子样品的固体含量平均分别为12.61％，12.93％，13.84％，15.31％和17.52％，而UMA生产的固体含量分别为12.81％，13.41％，13.69％，16.02％和18.82％。平均而言，UMA读数比标准方法高出0.64％（P <0.05）乳固体。用这两种方法分析的牛奶子样品的平均冰点对于UMA为-0.512，-0.531，-0.542，-0.651和-0.799℃，对于UMA为-0.493，-0.508，-0.549，-0.662和-0.854°C。冷冻镜。对于三种各自的牛奶子样品，通过三种分析方法确定的平均比重从1.0265升高（P <0.05）至1.0278、1.0292、1.0340和1.0407。对于所有牛奶子样品，与标准烘箱干燥方法相比，UMA和泌乳仪始终提供更高的（P <0.05）比重值。但是，平均而言，在UMA和标准方法之间仅观察到0.0014比重的差异。与此相反，在泌乳度计和标准方法之间，有明显的0.0043比重差异（P <0.05）。因此，建议对UMA仪器进行定期的本地生奶标准校准。还建议评估测乳仪的精度，并相应地调整比重读数。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号