Quality Difference Analysis of Jujube Wine of 13 Varieties
In order to study quality difference of jujube wine of different jujube varieties, 13 common varieties in the market were collected for fermentation. Basic physical and chemical indexes of the wine were determined, and organic acid and aroma components were also determined by ion chromatography and...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Rong YIN [verfasserIn] Qianru ZHANG [verfasserIn] Junyu WANG [verfasserIn] Zhihong LIANG [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Chinesisch |
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Shipin gongye ke-ji - The editorial department of Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2022, 44(2023), 5, Seite 277-284 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:44 ; year:2023 ; number:5 ; pages:277-284 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ088395642 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ088395642 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230502212941.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230410s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||chi c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ088395642 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJb5cbbb92d8e840039cc904ad7fa5da1c | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a chi | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a TP368-456 | |
| 100 | 0 | |a Rong YIN |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Quality Difference Analysis of Jujube Wine of 13 Varieties |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a In order to study quality difference of jujube wine of different jujube varieties, 13 common varieties in the market were collected for fermentation. Basic physical and chemical indexes of the wine were determined, and organic acid and aroma components were also determined by ion chromatography and headspace solid phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method respectively, and were then analysed combining with sensory evaluation. It was showed that contents of dry extract, VC and glycerol were all high, citric acid, succinic acid, lactic acid, acetic acid and quinic acid were the common organic acids, and esters were the main aroma components in different jujube wines. Different jujube wine had different quality characteristics. Fuping jujube wine, Yuanling jujube wine and Hami jujube wine had advantage in orgainic acid, Lingwu long jujube wine, Jixin jujube wine and Lingbao jujube wine had advantage in aroma components, and Goutou jujube wine had better basic physical and chemical indexes. Whereas, Lingwu long jujube, Jixin jujube and Goutou jujube were identified as the best jujube varieties for brewing by sensory evaluation, which indicated their wines had the best balance of flavor substances, and through analysis the common characteristics including sugar-acid ratio less than and mostly closing to 1, 6 kinds of different organic acid, more kinds of characteristic aroma substances, one dominant organic acid and more than two dominant aroma components which could contribute favourable flavor properties contained. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a varieties | |
| 650 | 4 | |a jujube wine | |
| 650 | 4 | |a quality | |
| 650 | 4 | |a organic acid | |
| 650 | 4 | |a aroma compounds | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Food processing and manufacture | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Qianru ZHANG |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Junyu WANG |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Zhihong LIANG |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Shipin gongye ke-ji |d The editorial department of Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2022 |g 44(2023), 5, Seite 277-284 |w (DE-627)DOAJ000150428 |x 10020306 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:44 |g year:2023 |g number:5 |g pages:277-284 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/b5cbbb92d8e840039cc904ad7fa5da1c |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://www.spgykj.com/cn/article/doi/10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/1002-0306 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 44 |j 2023 |e 5 |h 277-284 | ||
| author_variant |
r y ry q z qz j w jw z l zl |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:10020306:2023----::ultdfeecaayiojjbwn |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2023 |
| callnumber-subject-code |
TP |
| publishDate |
2023 |
| allfields |
10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 doi (DE-627)DOAJ088395642 (DE-599)DOAJb5cbbb92d8e840039cc904ad7fa5da1c DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb chi TP368-456 Rong YIN verfasserin aut Quality Difference Analysis of Jujube Wine of 13 Varieties 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In order to study quality difference of jujube wine of different jujube varieties, 13 common varieties in the market were collected for fermentation. Basic physical and chemical indexes of the wine were determined, and organic acid and aroma components were also determined by ion chromatography and headspace solid phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method respectively, and were then analysed combining with sensory evaluation. It was showed that contents of dry extract, VC and glycerol were all high, citric acid, succinic acid, lactic acid, acetic acid and quinic acid were the common organic acids, and esters were the main aroma components in different jujube wines. Different jujube wine had different quality characteristics. Fuping jujube wine, Yuanling jujube wine and Hami jujube wine had advantage in orgainic acid, Lingwu long jujube wine, Jixin jujube wine and Lingbao jujube wine had advantage in aroma components, and Goutou jujube wine had better basic physical and chemical indexes. Whereas, Lingwu long jujube, Jixin jujube and Goutou jujube were identified as the best jujube varieties for brewing by sensory evaluation, which indicated their wines had the best balance of flavor substances, and through analysis the common characteristics including sugar-acid ratio less than and mostly closing to 1, 6 kinds of different organic acid, more kinds of characteristic aroma substances, one dominant organic acid and more than two dominant aroma components which could contribute favourable flavor properties contained. varieties jujube wine quality organic acid aroma compounds Food processing and manufacture Qianru ZHANG verfasserin aut Junyu WANG verfasserin aut Zhihong LIANG verfasserin aut In Shipin gongye ke-ji The editorial department of Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2022 44(2023), 5, Seite 277-284 (DE-627)DOAJ000150428 10020306 nnns volume:44 year:2023 number:5 pages:277-284 https://doi.org/10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b5cbbb92d8e840039cc904ad7fa5da1c kostenfrei http://www.spgykj.com/cn/article/doi/10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1002-0306 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA AR 44 2023 5 277-284 |
| spelling |
10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 doi (DE-627)DOAJ088395642 (DE-599)DOAJb5cbbb92d8e840039cc904ad7fa5da1c DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb chi TP368-456 Rong YIN verfasserin aut Quality Difference Analysis of Jujube Wine of 13 Varieties 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In order to study quality difference of jujube wine of different jujube varieties, 13 common varieties in the market were collected for fermentation. Basic physical and chemical indexes of the wine were determined, and organic acid and aroma components were also determined by ion chromatography and headspace solid phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method respectively, and were then analysed combining with sensory evaluation. It was showed that contents of dry extract, VC and glycerol were all high, citric acid, succinic acid, lactic acid, acetic acid and quinic acid were the common organic acids, and esters were the main aroma components in different jujube wines. Different jujube wine had different quality characteristics. Fuping jujube wine, Yuanling jujube wine and Hami jujube wine had advantage in orgainic acid, Lingwu long jujube wine, Jixin jujube wine and Lingbao jujube wine had advantage in aroma components, and Goutou jujube wine had better basic physical and chemical indexes. Whereas, Lingwu long jujube, Jixin jujube and Goutou jujube were identified as the best jujube varieties for brewing by sensory evaluation, which indicated their wines had the best balance of flavor substances, and through analysis the common characteristics including sugar-acid ratio less than and mostly closing to 1, 6 kinds of different organic acid, more kinds of characteristic aroma substances, one dominant organic acid and more than two dominant aroma components which could contribute favourable flavor properties contained. varieties jujube wine quality organic acid aroma compounds Food processing and manufacture Qianru ZHANG verfasserin aut Junyu WANG verfasserin aut Zhihong LIANG verfasserin aut In Shipin gongye ke-ji The editorial department of Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2022 44(2023), 5, Seite 277-284 (DE-627)DOAJ000150428 10020306 nnns volume:44 year:2023 number:5 pages:277-284 https://doi.org/10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b5cbbb92d8e840039cc904ad7fa5da1c kostenfrei http://www.spgykj.com/cn/article/doi/10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1002-0306 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA AR 44 2023 5 277-284 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 doi (DE-627)DOAJ088395642 (DE-599)DOAJb5cbbb92d8e840039cc904ad7fa5da1c DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb chi TP368-456 Rong YIN verfasserin aut Quality Difference Analysis of Jujube Wine of 13 Varieties 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In order to study quality difference of jujube wine of different jujube varieties, 13 common varieties in the market were collected for fermentation. Basic physical and chemical indexes of the wine were determined, and organic acid and aroma components were also determined by ion chromatography and headspace solid phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method respectively, and were then analysed combining with sensory evaluation. It was showed that contents of dry extract, VC and glycerol were all high, citric acid, succinic acid, lactic acid, acetic acid and quinic acid were the common organic acids, and esters were the main aroma components in different jujube wines. Different jujube wine had different quality characteristics. Fuping jujube wine, Yuanling jujube wine and Hami jujube wine had advantage in orgainic acid, Lingwu long jujube wine, Jixin jujube wine and Lingbao jujube wine had advantage in aroma components, and Goutou jujube wine had better basic physical and chemical indexes. Whereas, Lingwu long jujube, Jixin jujube and Goutou jujube were identified as the best jujube varieties for brewing by sensory evaluation, which indicated their wines had the best balance of flavor substances, and through analysis the common characteristics including sugar-acid ratio less than and mostly closing to 1, 6 kinds of different organic acid, more kinds of characteristic aroma substances, one dominant organic acid and more than two dominant aroma components which could contribute favourable flavor properties contained. varieties jujube wine quality organic acid aroma compounds Food processing and manufacture Qianru ZHANG verfasserin aut Junyu WANG verfasserin aut Zhihong LIANG verfasserin aut In Shipin gongye ke-ji The editorial department of Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2022 44(2023), 5, Seite 277-284 (DE-627)DOAJ000150428 10020306 nnns volume:44 year:2023 number:5 pages:277-284 https://doi.org/10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b5cbbb92d8e840039cc904ad7fa5da1c kostenfrei http://www.spgykj.com/cn/article/doi/10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1002-0306 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA AR 44 2023 5 277-284 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 doi (DE-627)DOAJ088395642 (DE-599)DOAJb5cbbb92d8e840039cc904ad7fa5da1c DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb chi TP368-456 Rong YIN verfasserin aut Quality Difference Analysis of Jujube Wine of 13 Varieties 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In order to study quality difference of jujube wine of different jujube varieties, 13 common varieties in the market were collected for fermentation. Basic physical and chemical indexes of the wine were determined, and organic acid and aroma components were also determined by ion chromatography and headspace solid phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method respectively, and were then analysed combining with sensory evaluation. It was showed that contents of dry extract, VC and glycerol were all high, citric acid, succinic acid, lactic acid, acetic acid and quinic acid were the common organic acids, and esters were the main aroma components in different jujube wines. Different jujube wine had different quality characteristics. Fuping jujube wine, Yuanling jujube wine and Hami jujube wine had advantage in orgainic acid, Lingwu long jujube wine, Jixin jujube wine and Lingbao jujube wine had advantage in aroma components, and Goutou jujube wine had better basic physical and chemical indexes. Whereas, Lingwu long jujube, Jixin jujube and Goutou jujube were identified as the best jujube varieties for brewing by sensory evaluation, which indicated their wines had the best balance of flavor substances, and through analysis the common characteristics including sugar-acid ratio less than and mostly closing to 1, 6 kinds of different organic acid, more kinds of characteristic aroma substances, one dominant organic acid and more than two dominant aroma components which could contribute favourable flavor properties contained. varieties jujube wine quality organic acid aroma compounds Food processing and manufacture Qianru ZHANG verfasserin aut Junyu WANG verfasserin aut Zhihong LIANG verfasserin aut In Shipin gongye ke-ji The editorial department of Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2022 44(2023), 5, Seite 277-284 (DE-627)DOAJ000150428 10020306 nnns volume:44 year:2023 number:5 pages:277-284 https://doi.org/10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b5cbbb92d8e840039cc904ad7fa5da1c kostenfrei http://www.spgykj.com/cn/article/doi/10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1002-0306 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA AR 44 2023 5 277-284 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 doi (DE-627)DOAJ088395642 (DE-599)DOAJb5cbbb92d8e840039cc904ad7fa5da1c DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb chi TP368-456 Rong YIN verfasserin aut Quality Difference Analysis of Jujube Wine of 13 Varieties 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In order to study quality difference of jujube wine of different jujube varieties, 13 common varieties in the market were collected for fermentation. Basic physical and chemical indexes of the wine were determined, and organic acid and aroma components were also determined by ion chromatography and headspace solid phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method respectively, and were then analysed combining with sensory evaluation. It was showed that contents of dry extract, VC and glycerol were all high, citric acid, succinic acid, lactic acid, acetic acid and quinic acid were the common organic acids, and esters were the main aroma components in different jujube wines. Different jujube wine had different quality characteristics. Fuping jujube wine, Yuanling jujube wine and Hami jujube wine had advantage in orgainic acid, Lingwu long jujube wine, Jixin jujube wine and Lingbao jujube wine had advantage in aroma components, and Goutou jujube wine had better basic physical and chemical indexes. Whereas, Lingwu long jujube, Jixin jujube and Goutou jujube were identified as the best jujube varieties for brewing by sensory evaluation, which indicated their wines had the best balance of flavor substances, and through analysis the common characteristics including sugar-acid ratio less than and mostly closing to 1, 6 kinds of different organic acid, more kinds of characteristic aroma substances, one dominant organic acid and more than two dominant aroma components which could contribute favourable flavor properties contained. varieties jujube wine quality organic acid aroma compounds Food processing and manufacture Qianru ZHANG verfasserin aut Junyu WANG verfasserin aut Zhihong LIANG verfasserin aut In Shipin gongye ke-ji The editorial department of Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2022 44(2023), 5, Seite 277-284 (DE-627)DOAJ000150428 10020306 nnns volume:44 year:2023 number:5 pages:277-284 https://doi.org/10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b5cbbb92d8e840039cc904ad7fa5da1c kostenfrei http://www.spgykj.com/cn/article/doi/10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1002-0306 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA AR 44 2023 5 277-284 |
| language |
Chinese |
| source |
In Shipin gongye ke-ji 44(2023), 5, Seite 277-284 volume:44 year:2023 number:5 pages:277-284 |
| sourceStr |
In Shipin gongye ke-ji 44(2023), 5, Seite 277-284 volume:44 year:2023 number:5 pages:277-284 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
varieties jujube wine quality organic acid aroma compounds Food processing and manufacture |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Shipin gongye ke-ji |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Rong YIN @@aut@@ Qianru ZHANG @@aut@@ Junyu WANG @@aut@@ Zhihong LIANG @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2023-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
DOAJ000150428 |
| id |
DOAJ088395642 |
| language_de |
chinesisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ088395642</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502212941.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230410s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||chi c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ088395642</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJb5cbbb92d8e840039cc904ad7fa5da1c</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">chi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">TP368-456</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rong YIN</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Quality Difference Analysis of Jujube Wine of 13 Varieties</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In order to study quality difference of jujube wine of different jujube varieties, 13 common varieties in the market were collected for fermentation. Basic physical and chemical indexes of the wine were determined, and organic acid and aroma components were also determined by ion chromatography and headspace solid phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method respectively, and were then analysed combining with sensory evaluation. It was showed that contents of dry extract, VC and glycerol were all high, citric acid, succinic acid, lactic acid, acetic acid and quinic acid were the common organic acids, and esters were the main aroma components in different jujube wines. Different jujube wine had different quality characteristics. Fuping jujube wine, Yuanling jujube wine and Hami jujube wine had advantage in orgainic acid, Lingwu long jujube wine, Jixin jujube wine and Lingbao jujube wine had advantage in aroma components, and Goutou jujube wine had better basic physical and chemical indexes. Whereas, Lingwu long jujube, Jixin jujube and Goutou jujube were identified as the best jujube varieties for brewing by sensory evaluation, which indicated their wines had the best balance of flavor substances, and through analysis the common characteristics including sugar-acid ratio less than and mostly closing to 1, 6 kinds of different organic acid, more kinds of characteristic aroma substances, one dominant organic acid and more than two dominant aroma components which could contribute favourable flavor properties contained.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">varieties</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">jujube wine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">quality</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">organic acid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">aroma compounds</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Food processing and manufacture</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Qianru ZHANG</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Junyu WANG</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhihong LIANG</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Shipin gongye ke-ji</subfield><subfield code="d">The editorial department of Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2022</subfield><subfield code="g">44(2023), 5, Seite 277-284</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)DOAJ000150428</subfield><subfield code="x">10020306</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:44</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:5</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:277-284</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/b5cbbb92d8e840039cc904ad7fa5da1c</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.spgykj.com/cn/article/doi/10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1002-0306</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">44</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">5</subfield><subfield code="h">277-284</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| callnumber-first |
T - Technology |
| author |
Rong YIN |
| spellingShingle |
Rong YIN misc TP368-456 misc varieties misc jujube wine misc quality misc organic acid misc aroma compounds misc Food processing and manufacture Quality Difference Analysis of Jujube Wine of 13 Varieties |
| authorStr |
Rong YIN |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)DOAJ000150428 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| callnumber-label |
TP368-456 |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
10020306 |
| topic_title |
TP368-456 Quality Difference Analysis of Jujube Wine of 13 Varieties varieties jujube wine quality organic acid aroma compounds |
| topic |
misc TP368-456 misc varieties misc jujube wine misc quality misc organic acid misc aroma compounds misc Food processing and manufacture |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc TP368-456 misc varieties misc jujube wine misc quality misc organic acid misc aroma compounds misc Food processing and manufacture |
| topic_browse |
misc TP368-456 misc varieties misc jujube wine misc quality misc organic acid misc aroma compounds misc Food processing and manufacture |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Shipin gongye ke-ji |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
DOAJ000150428 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Shipin gongye ke-ji |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)DOAJ000150428 |
| title |
Quality Difference Analysis of Jujube Wine of 13 Varieties |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ088395642 (DE-599)DOAJb5cbbb92d8e840039cc904ad7fa5da1c |
| title_full |
Quality Difference Analysis of Jujube Wine of 13 Varieties |
| author_sort |
Rong YIN |
| journal |
Shipin gongye ke-ji |
| journalStr |
Shipin gongye ke-ji |
| callnumber-first-code |
T |
| lang_code |
chi |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2023 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
277 |
| author_browse |
Rong YIN Qianru ZHANG Junyu WANG Zhihong LIANG |
| container_volume |
44 |
| class |
TP368-456 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Rong YIN |
| doi_str_mv |
10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
quality difference analysis of jujube wine of 13 varieties |
| callnumber |
TP368-456 |
| title_auth |
Quality Difference Analysis of Jujube Wine of 13 Varieties |
| abstract |
In order to study quality difference of jujube wine of different jujube varieties, 13 common varieties in the market were collected for fermentation. Basic physical and chemical indexes of the wine were determined, and organic acid and aroma components were also determined by ion chromatography and headspace solid phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method respectively, and were then analysed combining with sensory evaluation. It was showed that contents of dry extract, VC and glycerol were all high, citric acid, succinic acid, lactic acid, acetic acid and quinic acid were the common organic acids, and esters were the main aroma components in different jujube wines. Different jujube wine had different quality characteristics. Fuping jujube wine, Yuanling jujube wine and Hami jujube wine had advantage in orgainic acid, Lingwu long jujube wine, Jixin jujube wine and Lingbao jujube wine had advantage in aroma components, and Goutou jujube wine had better basic physical and chemical indexes. Whereas, Lingwu long jujube, Jixin jujube and Goutou jujube were identified as the best jujube varieties for brewing by sensory evaluation, which indicated their wines had the best balance of flavor substances, and through analysis the common characteristics including sugar-acid ratio less than and mostly closing to 1, 6 kinds of different organic acid, more kinds of characteristic aroma substances, one dominant organic acid and more than two dominant aroma components which could contribute favourable flavor properties contained. |
| abstractGer |
In order to study quality difference of jujube wine of different jujube varieties, 13 common varieties in the market were collected for fermentation. Basic physical and chemical indexes of the wine were determined, and organic acid and aroma components were also determined by ion chromatography and headspace solid phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method respectively, and were then analysed combining with sensory evaluation. It was showed that contents of dry extract, VC and glycerol were all high, citric acid, succinic acid, lactic acid, acetic acid and quinic acid were the common organic acids, and esters were the main aroma components in different jujube wines. Different jujube wine had different quality characteristics. Fuping jujube wine, Yuanling jujube wine and Hami jujube wine had advantage in orgainic acid, Lingwu long jujube wine, Jixin jujube wine and Lingbao jujube wine had advantage in aroma components, and Goutou jujube wine had better basic physical and chemical indexes. Whereas, Lingwu long jujube, Jixin jujube and Goutou jujube were identified as the best jujube varieties for brewing by sensory evaluation, which indicated their wines had the best balance of flavor substances, and through analysis the common characteristics including sugar-acid ratio less than and mostly closing to 1, 6 kinds of different organic acid, more kinds of characteristic aroma substances, one dominant organic acid and more than two dominant aroma components which could contribute favourable flavor properties contained. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
In order to study quality difference of jujube wine of different jujube varieties, 13 common varieties in the market were collected for fermentation. Basic physical and chemical indexes of the wine were determined, and organic acid and aroma components were also determined by ion chromatography and headspace solid phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method respectively, and were then analysed combining with sensory evaluation. It was showed that contents of dry extract, VC and glycerol were all high, citric acid, succinic acid, lactic acid, acetic acid and quinic acid were the common organic acids, and esters were the main aroma components in different jujube wines. Different jujube wine had different quality characteristics. Fuping jujube wine, Yuanling jujube wine and Hami jujube wine had advantage in orgainic acid, Lingwu long jujube wine, Jixin jujube wine and Lingbao jujube wine had advantage in aroma components, and Goutou jujube wine had better basic physical and chemical indexes. Whereas, Lingwu long jujube, Jixin jujube and Goutou jujube were identified as the best jujube varieties for brewing by sensory evaluation, which indicated their wines had the best balance of flavor substances, and through analysis the common characteristics including sugar-acid ratio less than and mostly closing to 1, 6 kinds of different organic acid, more kinds of characteristic aroma substances, one dominant organic acid and more than two dominant aroma components which could contribute favourable flavor properties contained. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA |
| container_issue |
5 |
| title_short |
Quality Difference Analysis of Jujube Wine of 13 Varieties |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 https://doaj.org/article/b5cbbb92d8e840039cc904ad7fa5da1c http://www.spgykj.com/cn/article/doi/10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 https://doaj.org/toc/1002-0306 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Qianru ZHANG Junyu WANG Zhihong LIANG |
| author2Str |
Qianru ZHANG Junyu WANG Zhihong LIANG |
| ppnlink |
DOAJ000150428 |
| callnumber-subject |
TP - Chemical Technology |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306 |
| callnumber-a |
TP368-456 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T17:28:32.440Z |
| _version_ |
1803579778607874049 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ088395642</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502212941.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230410s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||chi c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ088395642</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJb5cbbb92d8e840039cc904ad7fa5da1c</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">chi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">TP368-456</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rong YIN</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Quality Difference Analysis of Jujube Wine of 13 Varieties</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In order to study quality difference of jujube wine of different jujube varieties, 13 common varieties in the market were collected for fermentation. Basic physical and chemical indexes of the wine were determined, and organic acid and aroma components were also determined by ion chromatography and headspace solid phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method respectively, and were then analysed combining with sensory evaluation. It was showed that contents of dry extract, VC and glycerol were all high, citric acid, succinic acid, lactic acid, acetic acid and quinic acid were the common organic acids, and esters were the main aroma components in different jujube wines. Different jujube wine had different quality characteristics. Fuping jujube wine, Yuanling jujube wine and Hami jujube wine had advantage in orgainic acid, Lingwu long jujube wine, Jixin jujube wine and Lingbao jujube wine had advantage in aroma components, and Goutou jujube wine had better basic physical and chemical indexes. Whereas, Lingwu long jujube, Jixin jujube and Goutou jujube were identified as the best jujube varieties for brewing by sensory evaluation, which indicated their wines had the best balance of flavor substances, and through analysis the common characteristics including sugar-acid ratio less than and mostly closing to 1, 6 kinds of different organic acid, more kinds of characteristic aroma substances, one dominant organic acid and more than two dominant aroma components which could contribute favourable flavor properties contained.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">varieties</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">jujube wine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">quality</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">organic acid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">aroma compounds</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Food processing and manufacture</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Qianru ZHANG</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Junyu WANG</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhihong LIANG</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Shipin gongye ke-ji</subfield><subfield code="d">The editorial department of Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2022</subfield><subfield code="g">44(2023), 5, Seite 277-284</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)DOAJ000150428</subfield><subfield code="x">10020306</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:44</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:5</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:277-284</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/b5cbbb92d8e840039cc904ad7fa5da1c</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.spgykj.com/cn/article/doi/10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022040306</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1002-0306</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">44</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">5</subfield><subfield code="h">277-284</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.398546 |