Thông tin tài liệu
I H C HU TR NG I H C NÔNG LÂM LÊ TH THANH NGHIÊN C U THI T L P QUY TRÌNH S N XU T CH PH M PROBIOTIC GIÀU CAROTENOPROTEIN T PH LI U TÔM CH BI N L LU N V N TH C S NG TH C, TH C PH M VẨ Chuyên ngành: Công ngh th c ph m HU - 2018 U NG I H C HU TR NG I H C NÔNG LÂM LÊ TH THANH NGHIÊN C U THI T L P QUY TRÌNH S N XU T CH PH M PROBIOTIC GIÀU CAROTENOPROTEIN T PH LI U TÔM CH BI N L LU N V N TH C S NG TH C, TH C PH M VẨ Chuyên ngành: Công ngh th c ph m Mã s : 8540101 NG IH PGS.TS NG D N KHOA H C TH BÍCH TH Y HU - 2018 U NG i L I CAM OAN Tơi xin cam đoan: ơy lƠ cơng trình nghiên c u c a riêng d i s h ng d n khoa h c c a PGS.TS Th Bích Th y Các s li u k t qu trình bày lu n v n lƠ trung th c, m t ph n đƣ đ c cơng b t p chí khoa h c chun ngành v i s đ ng ý cho phép c a đ ng tác gi Ph n cịn l i ch a đ c cơng b b t k cơng trình khác Tác gi lu n v n Lê Th Thanh ii L IC M N Trong su t trình h c t p, nghiên c u hoàn thành lu n v n ngoƠi s n l c vƠ đam mê c a b n thơn, đƣ nh n đ c r t nhi u s giúp đ , đ ng viên c a q th y cơ, gia đình vƠ b n bè L i đ u tiên xin bày t lòng c m n sơu s c t i PGS.TS Th Bích Th y đƣ đ nh h ng nghiên c u t n tình h ng d n tơi q trình h c t p th c hi n lu n v n Tôi xin c m n Phòng Ơo t o, Ban Giám hi u tr ng i h c Nông Lâm Hu đƣ t o u ki n thu n l i vƠ giúp đ tơi hồn thành m i th t c c n thi t trình làm nghiên c u Tôi xin g i l i c m n chơn thƠnh t i Ban Ch nhi m Khoa, th y giáo khoa C khí - Công ngh , tr ng i h c Nông Lâm Hu đƣ quan tơm, giúp đ , t o u ki n thu n l i su t th i gian h c tr ng th c hi n đ tài lu n v n Cu i xin c m n nh ng ng i thơn gia đình vƠ b n bè đƣ ln bên đ đ ng viên, khích l , t o m i u ki n vƠ giúp đ su t th i gian h c t p vƠ nghiên c u v a qua Tôi xin chân thành c m n! Tác gi lu n v n Lê Th Thanh iii TÓM T T Nghiên c u m t s thông s công ngh thích h p đ th y phân lên men ph li u tôm b i ch ng B subtilis C10 L fermentum TC10 vƠ đ xu t quy trình s n xu t ch ph m probiotic giàu carotenprotein t PLT K t qu c a đ tài làm ti n đ cho nghiên c u x lý PLT k t h p hai ch ph m vi sinh nh m t o ch ph m probitic giàu carotenoprotein có kh n ng ng d ng ch n nuôi Các ph ng pháp đ c s d ng đ phân tích ch tiêu trình nghiên c u th c hi n n i dung đ tƠi: ph ng pháp t ng sinh vƠ nuôi c y đ thu nh n sinh kh i t bƠo, xác đ nh s t bào s ng b ng ph ng pháp đ m khu n l c đ a th ch, xác đ nh ho t đ protease b ng ph ng pháp Ason c i ti n, xác đ nh hƠm l ng protein t ng s b ng ph ng pháp Kjeldahl, xác đ nh hƠm l ng nit formol b ng ph ng pháp sorensen, xác đ nh ho t tính kháng oxy hóa b ng ph ng pháp DPPH, xác đ nh hƠm l ng astaxanthin ph li u tôm vƠ xác đ nh đ m b ng ph ng pháp s y đ n kh i l ng khơng đ i Các thơng s cơng ngh thích h p đ x lý PLT quy trình s n xu t ch ph m probiotic giàu carotenprotein: t l gi a B subtilis C10 L fermentum TC10 gieo c y ban đ u vào PLT 1:2 Nhi t đ lên men 35oC th i gian lên men 24 gi Sau xác đ nh đ c thông s đ x lý PLT, ti p t c kh o sát t l ph i tr n d ch carotenoprotein thu đ c t trình lên men vào ch t mang bã s n khô, th c hi n s y ch ph m nhi t đ 35oC gi vƠ đƣ xác đ nh đ c t l ph i tr n thích h p 1:4 thơng qua ch tiêu m t đ t bào s ng (9,45 lg CFU/g), ho t đ protease (28,74 UI/ml), hƠm l ng astaxanthin (4,2 µg/g) vƠ đ m (6,9%) đ t yêu c u c a ch ph m Xây d ng đ c quy trình s n xu t ch ph m probiotic giàu carotenoprotein t ph li u tôm iv M CL C L I CAM OAN .i L I C M N ii TÓM T T iii M C L C iv DANH M C CÁC CH VI T T T vii DANH M C B NG BI U viii DANH M C HÌNH NH ix M U 1 t v n đ M c tiêu đ tài .2 ụ ngh a khoa h c th c ti n .2 CH NG T NG QUAN CÁC V N NGHIÊN C U 1.1 T NG QUAN V PROBIOTIC 1.1.1 Khái ni m probiotic 1.1.2 Tác d ng c a probiotic 1.2 T NG QUAN V VI KHU N LACTIC 1.2.1 Khái ni m vi khu n lactic 1.2.2 ng d ng c a vi khu n lactic 1.2.3 Lactobacillus fermentum .8 1.3 T NG QUAN V VI KHU N BACILLUS 1.3.1 Gi i thi u v Bacillus 1.3.2 c m chung 10 1.3.3 Bacillus subtilis 10 1.4 PH LI U TÔM .13 1.5 PH C H P CAROTENOPROTEIN VÀ ASTAXANTHIN 13 1.5.1 Ngu n g c b n ch t c a ch ph m caroten-protein 13 1.5.2 Astaxanthin ng d ng 14 v 1.6 TÌNH HÌNH NGHIÊN C U LIÊN QUAN N TÀI 16 1.6.1 Trên th gi i 16 1.6.2 CH Vi t Nam 20 NG N I DUNG VẨ PH 2.1 PH M VI VẨ IT NG PHÁP NGHIểN C U 24 NG NGHIÊN C U .24 2.1.1 Ph m vi nghiên c u 24 2.1.2 it ng nghiên c u 24 2.2 N I DUNG NGHIÊN C U 24 2.3 PH NG PHÁP NGHIÊN C U 25 2.3.1 Ph ng pháp vi sinh 25 2.3.2 Ph ng pháp hóa sinh 26 2.3.3 Ph ng pháp v t lý 28 2.3.4 Ph ng pháp b trí thí nghi m đ th c hi n n i dung nghiên c u .29 2.3.5 Ph ng pháp x lý s li u 34 CH NG K T QU NGHIÊN C U VÀ TH O LU N 36 3.1 THÀNH PH N HÓA H C C A PH LI U TÔM .36 3.2 K T QU NGHIÊN C U NH H NG C A T L GI A B subtilis C10 VÀ L fermentum TC10 GIEO C Y BAN U VÀO PH LI U TỌM N CH T L NG C A CH PH M PROBIOTIC GIÀU CAROTENOPROTEIN 37 3.2.1 nh h ng c a t l gi a B subtilis C10 L fermentum TC10 gieo c y ban đ u vƠo PLT đ n ho t đ enzyme protease 37 3.2.2 nh h ng c a t l gi a B subtilis C10 L fermentum TC10 gieo c y ban đ u vƠo PLT đ n m t đ t bào s ng 39 3.2.3 nh h ng c a t l gi a B subtilis C10 L fermentum TC10 gieo c y ban đ u vƠo PLT đ n ho t tính kháng oxy hóa 40 3.2.4 nh h ng c a t l gi a B subtilis C10 L fermentum TC10 gieo c y ban đ u vƠo PLT đ n hƠm l ng protein tách đ c so v i ban đ u 41 3.2.5 nh h ng c a t l gi a B subtilis C10 L fermentum TC10 gieo c y ban đ u vƠo PLT đ n hƠm l ng nit formol .42 3.3 K T QU NGHIÊN C U NH H NG C A NHI T LÊN MEN N CH T L NG C A CH PH M PROBIOTIC GIÀU CAROTENOPROTEIN .43 vi 3.3.1 nh h ng c a nhi t đ lên men đ n ho t đ protease 43 3.3.2 nh h ng c a nhi t đ lên men đ n m t đ t bào s ng 44 3.3.3 nh h ng c a nhi t đ lên men đ n ho t tính kháng oxy hóa 45 3.3.4 nh h ng c a nhi t đ lên men đ n hƠm l ng protein tách đ c so v i ban đ u 46 3.3.5 nh h ng c a nhi t đ lên men đ n hƠm l ng nit formol 47 3.4 K T QU NGHIÊN C U NH H NG C A TH I GIAN LÊN MEN N CH T L NG C A CH PH M PROBIOTIC GIÀU CAROTENOPROTEIN .48 3.4.1 nh h ng c a th i gian lên men đ n ho t đ protease .49 3.4.2 nh h ng c a th i gian lên men đ n m t đ t bào s ng 50 3.4.3 nh h ng c a th i gian lên men đ n ho t tính kháng oxy hóa 51 3.4.4 nh h ng c a th i gian lên men đ n hƠm l ng protein tách đ c so v i ban đ u 52 3.4.5 nh h ng c a th i gian lên men đ n hƠm l ng nit formol 54 3.5 K T QU NGHIÊN C U NH H NG C A T L PH I TR N D CH CAROTENOPROTEIN VÀO CH T MANG N CH T L NG C A CH PH M PROBIOTIC 55 3.5.1 nh h ng c a t l ph i tr n d ch carotenoprotein vào ch t mang đ n m t đ t bào s ng 55 3.5.2 nh h ng c a t l ph i tr n d ch carotenoprotein vào ch t mang đ n ho t đ protease, hƠm l ng astaxanthin vƠ đ m ch ph m 56 3.6 THI T L P QUY TRÌNH S N XU T CH PH M PROBIOTIC GIÀU CAROTENOPROTEIN T PH LI U TÔM 57 K T LU N VÀ KI N NGH .60 K T LU N 60 NGH .60 TÀI LI U THAM KH O 61 PH L C vii DANH M C CÁC CH VI T T T ANOVA Analysis of Variance AA Activity of Amylase BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand CFU Colony-forming Unit COD Chemical Oxygen Demand C i ch ng DDA Deacety hóa DH Degree of Hydrolysis DO Dissolved Oxygen DPPH 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl FBC Fat Binding Capacity LAB Lactic acid bacteria OD Optical Density PA Protease Activity PFCP Peptide from Carotenoprotein PLT Ph li u tôm SF Submerged Fermentation SSF Solid - State Fermentation UI International Unit VK Vi khu n VSV Vi sinh v t WBC Water Binding Capacity viii DANH M C B NG BI U B ng 3.1 Thành ph n hoá h c c b n c a ph li u tôm .36 B ng 3.2 Thông s thích h p cho q trình s n xu t ch ph m probiotic giàu carotenoprotein t PLT b i B subtilis C10 L fermentum TC10 54 B ng 3.3 nh h ng c a t l ph i tr n d ch carotenoprotein vào ch t mang đ n ho t đ protease, hƠm l ng astaxanthin vƠ đ m ch ph m 56 69 [91] Messina, C., Renda, G., Randazzo, M., Laudicella, A., Gharbi, S., Pizzo, F., Morghese, M., and Santulli, A (2015), Extraction of bioactive compounds from shrimp waste, Bull Inst Natn Scien Tech Mer de Salammbô, Vol 42 [92] Metusalach, Brown, J A., Shahidi, F (1997), Effects of stocking density on colour characteristics and deposition of carotenoids in cultured Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus), Food Chemistry, 59, pp 107ậ114 [93] Michetti, P., Dorta, G., Wiesel, P H., Brassart, D., Verdu, E., Herranz, M., Felley, C., Porta, N., Rouvet, M., Blum, A L., Theulaz, C.I (1999), ắEffect of whey-based culture supernatant of Lactobacillus acidophilus (johnsonii) La1” on Helicobacter pylori infection in humans, Digestion, 60(3), pp 203-212 [94] Mongkol, T., Pongphun B., Piyanuch, N (2009), ắProbiotic potential of lactic acid bacteria isolated from fermented dairy milks on antiproliferation of colon cancer cells”, Biotechnology Letters, 31, pp 571ậ576 [95] Motevaseli, E , Dianatpour, A and Ghafouri-Fard, S (2017), The Role of Probiotics in Cancer Treatment: Emphasis on their In Vivo and In Vitro Antimetastatic Effects, International Journal of Molecular and cellula Medicine 6(2), pp 66ậ76 [96] Moure, T., Dominguez, H and Parajo, J.C (2006), Antioxydant properties of ultrafiltrationrecovered soy protein factions from Industrial effluents and their hydrolysates, Process Biochem, 41, pp 447-456 [97] Mukkhejee, A K., Adhikari, H (2008), Production of alkaline protease by a thermophilic Bacillus subtilis under solid-state fermentation (SSF) condition usingImperata cylindrica grass and potato peel as low-cost medium: Characterization and application of enzyme in detergent formulation, Biochemical Engineering Jounal, Vol 39(2), pp 353ậ361 [98] Musa, H H., Wu, S L., Zhu, C H., Seri, H I and Zhu, G Q (2009), The Potential Benefits of Probiotics in Animal Production and Health, Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 8(2), pp 313-321 [99] Ohkouchi, Y., Inoue, Y (2006), ắDirect production of L(+ )-lactic acid from starch and food wastes using Lactobacillus manihotivorans LMG18011”, Bioresource Technology 97, pp 1554ậ1562 [100] Pal, J., Verma, H O., Munka, V K., Maurya, S K., Roy, D., Kumar, J (2014), Biological Method of Chitin Extraction from Shrimp Waste an Eco-friendly low Cost Technology and its Advanced Application, International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies, 1(6), pp 104-107 70 [101] Pan, C H , Y H Chien, and B Hunter (2003), The resistance to ammonia stress of Penaeus monodon Fabricius juvenile fed diets supplemented with astaxanthin, Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 297, pp 107-118 [102] Park, K B., Oh, S H (2007), “Production of yogurt with enhanced levels of gamma-aminobutyric acid and valuable nutrients using lactic acid bacteria and germinated soybean extract”, Bioresource Technology, 98, pp 1675ậ1679 [103] Parvez1, S., Malik, K.A., Ah, K S., Kim, H.Y (2006), “Probiotics and their fermented food products are beneficial for health”, Journal of Applied Microbiology, 100, pp 1171ậ1185 [104] Prescott, M L., Harley, J P., Klein, D A (2002), Microbiology 5th edition, McGrawứHill, New York [105] Rao, M S and Stevens, W F (2005), Chitin production by Lactobacillus fermentation of shrimp biowaste in a drum reactor and its chemical conversion to chitosan, Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, Vol 80, pp 1080ậ1087 [106] Rao, M S., Tuyen, M H., Stevens, W F and Chandrkrachang, S (2001), Deproteination by mechanical, enzymatic and Lactobacillus treatment of shrimp waste for production of chitin, Chitin and Chitosan: Chitin and Chitosan in Life Science, Yamaguchi Press, Japan, pp 301ậ304 [107] Sadighara, P., Moghadam, H., Eskandari, T., S., Salehi, A (2015), Optimization of extraction of chitosan and carotenoids from shrimp waste, International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies, 2(5), pp 36-38 [108] Saikali, J., Picard, C., Freitas, M., Holt, P (2004), “ạermented milks, probiotic cultures, and colon cancer”, Nutrition and cancer, 49 (1), pp 14-24 [109] Sanders, M E., Morelli, L and Tompkins, T A (2003), Sporeformers as Human Probiotics: Bacillus, Sporolactobacillus, and Brevibacillus, Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety, Vol [110] Sandes, S., Alvim, L., Silva, B., Acurcio, L., Santos, C., Campos, M., Santos, C., Nicolib, J., Neumannb, E., Nunesa, Á., (2017), Selection of new lactic acid bacteria strains bearing probiotic features from mucosal microbiota of healthy calves: Looking for immunobiotics through in vitro and in vivo approaches for immunoprophylaxis applications, Microbiological Research, 200, pp 1ậ13 71 [111] See, S F., Hoo, L L and Babji, A S (2011), Optimization of enzymatic hydrolysis of Salmon (Salmo salar) skin by Alcalase, International Food Research Journal, 18(40), pp 1359-1365 [112] Senphan, T., Benjakul S., Kishimura, H (2014), Characteristics and antioxidative activity of carotenoprotein from shells of Pacific white shrimp extracted using hepatopancreas proteases, Food Bioscience, 5, pp 54ậ63 [113] Sila, A., Kamoun, Z., Ghlissi Z., Makni M., Nasri M., Sahnoun Z., NedjarArroume N., Bougatef A (2014), Ability of natural astaxanthin from shrimp byproducts to attenuate liver oxidative stress in diabetic rats, US National library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, 67(2), pp 310-316 [114] Simon, O (2001), Probiotic feed additives - effectiveness and expected modes of action 10(Suppl 1), pp 51ậ67 [115] Soares, V F., Castilho, L R., Bon, E P S and Freire, D M G (2005), HighYield Bacillus subtilis Protease Production by Solid-State Fermentation, All rights of any nature what so ever reserved 0273-2289/05/121ậ124/311ậ320 [116] Sowmya, R., Rathinaraj, K and Sachindra, N M (2011), An Autolytic Process for Recovery of Antioxidant Activity Rich Carotenoprotein from Shrimp Heads, Mar Biotechnol, 1, pp 918ậ927 [117] Strompfova, V., Marcinakova, M., Gancarcikova, S., Jonecova, Z., scirankova, L., Guba, P., Koscova, J., Boldizarova, K., Laukova, A (2005), New probiotic strain Lactobacillus fermentum AD1 and its effect in Japanese quail, Vet Med ậ Czech, Vol 50(9), pp 415ậ420 [118] Tanaka, T., Morishita, Y., Suzui, M., Kojima, T., Okumura A and Mori H (1994), Chemoprevention of mouse urinary bladder carcinogenesis by the naturally occurring carotenoid astaxanthin, Carcinogenesis, 15,(1), pp 15-19 [119] Tokatlố, K and Demirdöven, S (2017), Optimization of chitin and chitosan production from shrimp wastes and characterization, Journal of food processing and preservation, 60 [120] Tolasa, S., Cakli, S., Ostermeyer, U (2005), Determination of astaxanthin and canthaxanthin in salmonid, European Food Research and Technology, 221, pp 787ậ791 [121] Trung, T S., Phuong, P T D (2012), Bioactive compounds from by-products of shrimp processing industry in Vietnam, Journal of Food and Drug Analysis, Vol 20(1), pp 194ậ197 72 [122] Veron, H E., Risio, H D D., Isla, M I., Torres S (2017), Isolation and selection of potential probiotic lactic acid bacteria from Opuntia ficus-indica fruits that grow in Northwest Argentina, Food Science and Technology 84, pp 231-240 [123] Vos, P D., Garrity, G M., Jones, D (2009), Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology Springer Science [124] Yu, A Q and Li, L (2016), The Potential Role of Probiotics in Cancer Prevention and Treatment, US National library of Medicine National Institutes of Health 68(4), pp 535-44 [125] Zagal sky, P.F (1976), Carotenoid-protein complexes, Pure and Applied Chemistry 47, pp 103-120 [126] Zhao, Y., Zhang, W., Xu, W., Mai, K., Zhang, Y., Liufu, Z (2012), Effects of potential probiotic Bacillus subtilis T13 on growth, immunity and disease resistance against Vibrio splendidus infection in juvenile sea cucumber Apostichopus japonicas, Fish & Shellfish Immunology, 32, pp 750-755 [127] Zoumpopoulou, G., Foligne, B., Christodoulou, K., Grangette, C., Pot, B., Tsakalidou, E (2008), Lactobacillus fermentum ACA-DC 179 displays probiotic potential in vitro and protects against trinitrobenzene sulfonic acid (TNBS)-induced colitis and Salmonella infection in murine models, International Journal of Food Microbiology, pp 18-26 TÀI LI U INTERNET [128] http://sacngockhang.com/vi-sao-astaxanthin-chiet-xuat-tu-vi-tao-luc-nhat-bantot-nhat-hien-nay.html [129] https://jb.asm.org/content/197/13/2129 [130] https://nootriment.com/lactobacillus-fermentum/ [131] https://www.indiamart.com/proddetail/bacillus-subtilis-8411588688.html 70 PH L C PH L C X LÝ S LI U VẨ PHỂN TệCH PH NG SAI (ANOVA) B NG PH N M M MINITAB 17 Phân tích thành ph n ph li u tôm One-way ANOVA: k t qu versus thanhphanPLT Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value ThanhphanPLT 3912.65 1956.32 136.99 0.000 Error 85.69 14.28 Total 3998.34 ThanhphanPLT N Mean StDev 95% CI doam 76.30 4.78 (70.96, 81.64) HLastaxanthin 27.57 2.06 (22.23, 32.91) HLprotein 38.70 3.97 (33.36, 44.04) Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence ThanhphanPLT N Mean Grouping doam 76.3000 A HLprotein 38.7000 B Hlastaxanthin 27.5667 C Nghiên c u nh h ng c a t l gi a B subtilis C10 L fermentum TC10 gieo c Ổ ban đ u vào PLT đ n ch t l ng c a ch ph m probiotic giàu carotenoprotein One-way ANOVA: Ho protease (UI/ml) versus tylevsv Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value tylevsv 3044.12 1014.71 445.14 0.000 Error 18.24 2.28 Total 11 3062.35 tylevsv N Mean StDev 95% CI (1:1) 40.12 1.83 ( 38.11, 42.13) (1:2) 46.81 1.82 ( 44.80, 48.82) (2:1) 37.807 1.530 (35.797, 39.818) C 5.600 0.320 ( 3.590, 7.610) Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence tylevsv N Mean Grouping (1:2) 46.8148 A (1:1) 40.1185 B (2:1) 37.8074 B C 5.6000 C One-way ANOVA: ho t tính kháng oxy hóa (%) versus tylevsv Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value tylevsv 1255.24 418.413 107.82 0.000 Error 31.04 3.880 Total 11 1286.28 tylevsv N Mean StDev 95% CI (1:1) 26.908 0.886 (24.286, 29.531) (1:2) 40.58 2.09 ( 37.96, 43.20) (2:1) 23.86 2.58 ( 21.24, 26.49) C 11.84 1.93 ( 9.21, 14.46) 71 Grouping tylevsv (1:2) (1:1) (2:1) C Information N Mean 40.5797 26.9082 23.8647 11.8357 Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence Grouping A A B A B B One-way ANOVA: m t đ t bào s ng (lg CFU/ml) versus tylevsv Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value tylevsv 0.034809 0.017405 64.56 0.000 Error 0.001618 0.000270 Total 0.036427 tylevsv N Mean StDev 95% CI (1:1) 9.5332 0.0187 ( 9.5100, 9.5564) (1:2) 9.68050 0.01083 (9.65730, 9.70369) (2:1) 9.5733 0.0185 ( 9.5501, 9.5965) Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence tylevsv N Mean Grouping (1:2) 9.68050 A (2:1) 9.57328 B (1:1) 9.53317 C C -0.00000 D One-way ANOVA: protein tách đ c so v i ban đ u (%) versus tylevsv Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value tylevsv 7366.53 2455.51 8151.16 0.000 Error 2.41 0.30 Total 11 7368.94 tylevsv N Mean StDev 95% CI (1:1) 55.053 0.555 (54.322, 55.783) (1:2) 72.211 0.746 (71.480, 72.941) (2:1) 62.000 0.329 (61.269, 62.731) C 7.632 0.482 ( 6.901, 8.362) Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence tylevsv N Mean Grouping (1:2) 72.4211 A (2:1) 62.0000 B (1:1) 55.0526 C C 7.6316 D One-way ANOVA: hàm l Source tylevsv Error Total tylevsv (1:1) (1:2) (2:1) C Grouping tylevsv (1:2) (2:1) (1:1) C ng nit formol (g/l) versus tylevsv DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value 0,36280 0,120932 55,67 0,000 0,01738 0,002172 11 0,38017 N Mean StDev 95% CI 1,0873 0,0583 (1,0253 1,1494) 1,3113 0,0214 (1,2493 1,3734 1,1013 0,0492 (1,0393 1,1634) 0,8213 0,0492 (0,7593 0,8834) Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence N Mean Grouping 1.31133 A 1.10133 B 1.08733 B 0.82133 C 72 Nghiên c u nh h ng c a nhi t đ lên men đ n ch t l probiotic giàu carotenoprotein ng c a ch ph m One-way ANOVA: ho protease (UI/ml) versus nhietdo Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value nhietdo 819,67 273,224 89,24 0,000 Error 24,49 3,062 Total 11 844,17 nhietdo N Mean StDev 95% CI 30 46,61 2,52 ( 44,28 48,94) 35 49,393 1,616 (47,063 51,722) 40 32,859 0,718 (30,530 35,189) 45 30,489 1,661 (28,159 32,818) Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence nhietdo N Mean Grouping 35 49.3926 A 30 46.6074 A 40 32.8593 B 45 30.4889 B One-way ANOVA: ho t tính kháng oxy hóa (%) versus nhietdo Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value nhietdo 2820.93 940.308 115.13 0.000 Error 65.34 8.167 Total 11 2886.26 nhietdo N Mean StDev 95% CI 30 49.86 3.14 (46.05, 53.66) 35 41.45 3.40 (37.64, 45.25) 40 16.96 2.26 (13.15, 20.76) 45 14.30 2.49 (10.49, 18.10) Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence nhietdo N Mean Grouping 30 49.8551 A 35 41.4493 A 40 16.9565 B 45 14.2995 B One-way ANOVA: m t đ t bào s ng (lg CFU/ml) versus nhietdo Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value nhietdo 0.147448 0.049149 93.69 0.000 Error 0.004197 0.000525 Total 11 0.151644 nhietdo N Mean StDev 95% CI 30 9.67858 0.00387 (9.64808, 9.70907) 35 9.69051 0.01240 (9.66002, 9.72101) 40 9.54933 0.01176 (9.51884, 9.57983) 45 9.4177 0.0423 ( 9.3872, 9.4482) Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence nhietdo N Mean Grouping 35 9.69051 A 30 9.67858 A 40 9.54933 B 45 9.41769 C One-way ANOVA: hàm l ng protein tách đ c v i ban đ u (%) versus nhietdo Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value nhietdo 140.88 46.961 33.05 0.000 73 Error Total nhietdo 30 35 40 45 Grouping nhietdo 35 30 40 45 11.37 1.421 11 152.25 N Mean StDev 95% CI 71.737 0.795 (70.150, 73.324) 72.579 0.638 (70.992, 74.166) 66.05 1.93 ( 64.47, 67.64) 64.737 0.960 (63.150, 66.324) Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence N Mean Grouping 72.5789 A 71.7368 A 66.0526 B 64.7368 B One-way ANOVA: hàm l ng nit formol (g/l) versus nhietdo Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value nhietdo 0.15071 0.050236 20.10 0.000 Error 0.01999 0.002499 Total 11 0.17070 nhietdo N Mean StDev 95% CI 30 1.2227 0.0566 (1.1561, 1.2892) 35 1.3253 0.0492 (1.2588, 1.3919) 40 1.0967 0.0428 (1.0301, 1.1632) 45 1.0360 0.0505 (0.9694, 1.1026) Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence nhietdo N Mean Grouping 35 1.32533 A 30 1.22267 A B 40 1.09667 B C 45 1.03600 C Nghiên c u nh h ng c a th i gian lên men đ n ch t l probiotic giàu carotenoprotein ng c a ch ph m One-way ANOVA: ho t tính kháng oxy hóa (%) versus thoigian Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value thoigian 4315.9 539.49 48.01 0.000 Error 18 202.3 11.24 Total 26 4518.2 thoigian N Mean StDev 95% CI 5.507 1.186 (1.441, 9.573) 16 11.932 0.715 (7.866, 15.998) 24 43.48 3.80 (39.41, 47.54) 32 40.29 2.16 (36.22, 44.36) 40 38.55 3.32 (34.48, 42.62) 48 36.67 3.07 (32.60, 40.73) 56 35.51 3.77 (31.44, 39.57) 64 32.66 2.22 (28.59, 36.72) 72 21.55 6.37 (17.48, 25.61) thoigian N Mean Grouping 24 43.4783 A 32 40.2899 A B 40 38.5507 A B 48 36.6667 A B 56 35.5072 A B 64 32.6570 B 72 21.5459 C 16 11.9324 D 74 5.5072 One-way ANOVA: protease (UI/ml) versus thoigian Source DF Adj SS thoigian 7012.2 Error 18 232.2 Total 26 7244.4 thoigian N Mean 1.778 16 23.348 24 51.53 32 50.81 40 51.79 48 52.03 56 47.14 64 43.23 72 42.46 Grouping Information thoigian N Mean 48 52.0296 40 51.7926 24 51.5259 32 50.8148 56 47.1407 64 43.2296 72 42.4593 16 23.3481 1.7778 One-way ANOVA: hàm l Adj MS 876.52 12.90 F-Value 67.94 P-Value 0.000 StDev 95% CI 0.800 (-2.579, 6.135) 0.224 (18.991, 27.705) 2.67 ( 47.17, 55.88) 3.63 ( 46.46, 55.17) 4.59 ( 47.44, 56.15) 5.56 ( 47.67, 56.39) 4.02 ( 42.78, 51.50) 4.21 ( 38.87, 47.59) 3.05 ( 38.10, 46.82) Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence Grouping A A A A A A A B C ng protein tách đ c so v i ban đ u (%) versus thoigian Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value thoigian 11262.8 1407.85 1082.11 0.000 Error 18 23.4 1.30 Total 26 11286.2 thoigian N Mean StDev 95% CI 11.842 0.569 (10.459, 13.226) 16 29.947 0.965 (28.564, 31.331) 24 71.368 1.035 (69.985, 72.752) 32 70.632 0.746 (69.248, 72.015) 40 69.74 1.74 ( 68.35, 71.12) 48 68.526 0.986 (67.143, 69.910) 56 67.947 1.266 (66.564, 69.331) 64 67.105 1.555 (65.722, 68.489) 72 66.263 0.898 (64.880, 67.647) Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence thoigian N Mean Grouping 24 71.3684 A 32 70.6316 A B 40 69.7368 A B 48 68.5263 B C 56 67.9474 B C 64 67.1053 C D 72 66.2632 D 16 29.9474 E 11.8421 F 75 One-way ANOVA: m t đ t bào s ng (lg CFU/ml) versus thoigian Source DF Adj SS Adj MS thoigian 39.1036 4.88795 Error 18 0.3056 0.01698 Total 26 39.4092 thoigian N Mean StDev 6.082 0.350 16 7.8760 0.1727 24 9.70267 0.00595 32 9.69688 0.01030 40 9.69441 0.01157 48 9.68877 0.01059 56 9.68061 0.01424 64 9.68106 0.00993 72 9.68059 0.00163 Grouping Information Using the thoigian N Mean Grouping 24 9.70267 A 32 9.69688 A 40 9.69441 A 48 9.68877 A 64 9.68106 A 56 9.68061 A 72 9.68059 A 16 7.87599 B 6.08229 C One-way ANOVA: hàm l F-Value 287.94 P-Value 0.000 95% CI ( 5.924, 6.240) ( 7.7180, 8.0340) (9.54463, 9.86070) (9.53885, 9.85492) (9.53637, 9.85245) (9.53073, 9.84681) (9.52258, 9.83865) (9.52302, 9.83910) (9.52255, 9.83863) Tukey Method and 95% Confidence ng nit formol (g/l) versus thoigian Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value thoigian 4.87462 0.609328 263.13 0.000 Error 18 0.04168 0.002316 Total 26 4.91630 thoigian N Mean StDev 95% CI 0.1307 0.0214 (0.0723, 0.1890) 16 0.3733 0.0291 (0.3150, 0.4317) 24 1.3533 0.0291 (1.2950, 1.4117) 32 1.3160 0.0370 (1.2576, 1.3744) 40 1.2787 0.0352 (1.2203, 1.3370) 48 1.2693 0.0450 (1.2110, 1.3277) 56 1.2320 0.0370 (1.1736, 1.2904) 64 1.1667 0.0771 (1.1083, 1.2250) 72 1.1713 0.0820 (1.1130, 1.2297) Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence thoigian N Mean Grouping 24 1.35333 A 32 1.31600 A 40 1.27867 A B 48 1.26933 A B 56 1.23200 A B 72 1.17133 B 64 1.16667 B 16 0.37333 C 0.13067 D 76 Nghiên c u nh h ng c a t l ph i tr n d ch carotenoprotein v i ch t mang đ n ch t l ng c a ch ph m probiotic giàu carotenoprotein One-way ANOVA: đ m (%) versus tylephoitron Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value tylephoitron 52.4800 17.4933 333.21 0.000 Error 0.4200 0.0525 Total 11 52.9000 tylephoitron N Mean StDev 95% CI (1:1) 12.533 0.208 ( 12.228, 12.838) (1:2) 10.4000 0.1000 (10.0949, 10.7051) (1:3) 8.533 0.306 ( 8.228, 8.838) (1:4) 6.933 0.252 ( 6.628, 7.238) Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence tylephoitron N Mean Grouping (1:1) 12.5333 A (1:2) 10.4000 B (1:3) 8.5333 C (1:4) 6.9333 D One-way ANOVA: m t đ t bào s ng (lg CFU/g) versus tylephoitron Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value tylephoitron 0.011888 0.003963 13.66 0.002 Error 0.002321 0.000290 Total 11 0.014209 tylephoitron N Mean StDev 95% CI (1:1) 9.63286 0.00668 (9.61018, 9.65554) (1:2) 9.5828 0.0270 ( 9.5602, 9.6055) (1:3) 9.57019 0.01042 (9.54752, 9.59287) (1:4) 9.54677 0.01668 (9.52409, 9.56944) Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence tylephoitron N Mean Grouping (1:1) 9.64582 A (1:2) 9.58285 B (1:3) 9.55005 B (1:4) 9.45574 C One-way ANOVA: ho protease (UI/g) versus tylephoitron Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value tylephoitron 2390.1 796.69 32.53 0.000 Error 196.0 24.49 Total 11 2586.0 tylephoitron N Mean StDev 95% CI (1:1) 65.78 3.20 (59.19, 72.37) (1:2) 46.81 5.65 (40.23, 53.40) (1:3) 34.96 1.85 (28.37, 41.55) (1:4) 28.74 7.24 (22.15, 35.33) Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence tylephoitron N Mean Grouping (1:1) 65.7778 A (1:2) 46.8148 B (1:3) 34.9630 B C (1:4) 28.7407 C One-way ANOVA: hàm l ng astaxanthin ( g/g) versus tylephoitron Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value tylephoitron 0.5256 0.17521 7.13 0.012 77 Error 0.1967 0.02458 Total 11 0.7223 tylephoitron N Mean StDev 95% CI (1:1) 4.433 0.176 ( 4.225, 4.642) (1:2) 4.100 0.180 ( 3.891, 4.309) (1:3) 3.8500 0.0500 (3.6413, 4.0587) (1:4) 4.200 0.180 ( 3.991, 4.409) Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence tylephoitron N Mean Grouping (1:1) 4.43333 A (1:4) 4.20000 A B (1:2) 4.10000 A B (1:3) 3.85000 B 78 PH L C M TS HÌNH NH TRONG QUÁ TRÌNH LÀM THÍ NGHI M LIÊN QUAN N N I DUNG NGHIÊN C U Hình PLT sau lên men Hình D ch carotenoprotein sau l c tách bã Hình Xác đ nh ho t tính kháng oxy hóa Hình Xác đ nh ho t đ protease Hình Xác đ nh hàm l ng nit formol Hình Xác đ nh hàm l Hình Xác đ nh đ ng protein tách đ m c a ch ph m c so v i ban đ u 79 Hình Xác đ nh m t đ t bào s ng Hình Xác đ nh hàm l ng astaxanthin 80 ... Guerrero, 2009) [47],[55],[58] 1.5.2 Astaxanthin ng d ng 1.5.2.1 Gi i thi u Cơng th c phân t c a astaxanthin t ng t nh -caroten nh ng ph c t p h n (Hình 1.4) Astaxanthin có 13 n i đơi -caroten ch có n... trúc c a astaxanthin 1.5.2.2 ng d ng c a astaxanthin Trong công ngh th c ph m Trong ch bi n màu s c bên ngoƠi c ng lƠ y u t quan tr ng thu hút khách hƠng vƠ ng i tiêu dùng Astaxanthin đ c coi... astaxanthin t Màu s c cu i s th m màu ph thu c vào hƠm l ng c a astaxanthin l ng đ ng l i i v i nh ng th c ph m đ c bi t s n ph m có ngu n g c t loài giáp xác b bi n màu gi m ho c m t astaxanthin
Ngày đăng: 02/07/2020, 22:26
Xem thêm:
