不同切片方式对丹参干燥特性的影响

doi:10.3976/j.issn.1002-4026.2023.04.002

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探讨不同切片方式对丹参干燥特性的影响,分别采用现代常用的40 ℃热风干燥与传统常温晾晒干燥,比较不同切片方式(圆切和45°斜切)、切片厚度(2、4、6 mm)丹参的干燥失水过程。结果显示不同切片方式的丹参在干燥过程中主要为降速阶段,干燥速率随着干基含水率的降低而降低,切片厚度越大,干燥速率越低,干燥时间越长。Page模型为丹参干燥拟合最好的模型,模型预测值与实验值吻合性较好,能较好地描述不同切片方式下丹参的干燥过程。该研究对丹参趁鲜切制干燥等加工生产具有一定的指导意义。

关键词: 丹参, 切片方式, 干燥特性, 动力学模型

Abstract:

To explore the effect of different slicing methods on the drying characteristics of Salviae Miltiorrhizae Radix Et Rhizoma, the hot air drying at 40 ℃ and traditional air drying at room temperature were performed and the results were compared. Furthermore, the effect of different slicing methods (circular cutting and 45° oblique cutting) and slice thickness (2, 4, and 6 mm) on the drying characteristics of Salviae Miltiorrhizae Radix Et Rhizoma were investigated. Several water-loss kinetic models were adopted to quantitatively describe the drying characteristics. Results showed that the drying was mainly a falling rate period. The drying rate decreased with the decrease of the moisture content of the dry basis. Furthermore, the larger the slice thickness, the lower the drying rate and the longer the drying time. According to statistical parameters, the Page model predicted and described the drying process more accurately than others. The predicted value of the model was in good agreement with the experimental value, and it could well describe the drying process for different slicing methods. The research provides a guidance for further investigating Salviae Miltiorrhizae Radix Et Rhizoma.

Key words: Salviae Miltiorrhizae Radix Et Rhizoma, slicing methods, drying characteristics, mathematical model

中图分类号:

R283.6

王雨晨, 崔莉, 赵恒强, 卢恒, 刘伟, 王晓. 不同切片方式对丹参干燥特性的影响[J]. 山东科学, 2023, 36(4): 10-17.

WANG Yuchen, CUI Li, ZHAO Hengqiang, LU Heng, LIU Wei, WANG Xiao. Effect of different slicing methods on the drying characteristics of Salviae Miltiorrhizae Radix Et Rhizoma[J]. Shandong Science, 2023, 36(4): 10-17.

图/表 6

图1

图2

表1

表2

不同切片方式的干燥模型统计结果"

模型序号	厚度/mm	切片	模型参数		χ²	R²	$δ R M S E$
1	4	圆片	K=0.411 44		0.001 24	0.983 86	0.034 13
	2	圆片	K=0.870 93		0.001 43	0.982 47	0.036 38
	6	圆片	K=0.287 59		0.001 19	0.982 66	0.033 39
	2	斜片	K=1.289 36		4.983 33×10^-4	0.994 59	0.021 61
	4	斜片	K=0.661 73		3.627 12×10^-4	0.996 28	0.018 58
	6	斜片	K=0.533 38		7.351 04×10^-4	0.992 19	0.026 46
2	4	圆片	k=0.478 00	n=0.806 01	6.178 44×10^-5	0.999 25	0.007 35
	2	圆片	k=0.915 36	n=0.796 90	1.463 33×10^-4	0.998 34	0.011 21
	6	圆片	k=0.346 06	n=0.811 86	2.631 77×10^-5	0.999 64	0.004 80
	2	斜片	k=1.267 23	n=0.927 04	3.898 14×10^-4	0.995 77	0.019 12
	4	斜片	k=0.682 94	n=0.917 40	1.995 05×10^-4	0.998 06	0.013 43
	6	斜片	k=0.580 17	n=0.854 43	7.740 65×10^-5	0.999 22	0.008 37

表2

表3

不同干燥方式的干燥模型结果"

模型序号	干燥方式	模型参数				χ²	R²	$δ R M S E$
1	晒干	K=0.287 69				7.049 28×10^-4	0.992 22	0.025 87
	晾干	K=0.057 09				3.674 26×10^-4	0.996 88	0.018 82
2	晒干	K=0.319 62	n=0.914 99			5.327 09×10^-4	0.994 43	0.021 90
	晾干	k=0.050 27	n=1.046 92			3.069 13×10^-4	0.997 4	0.017 21
3	晒干	a=0.982 32	k=0.281 19			6.990 13×10^-4	0.992 69	0.025 08
	晾干	a=1.005 71	k=0.057 58			3.753 74×10^-4	0.996 93	0.018 67
4	晒干	a=0.946 55	k=0.331 72	c=0.057 46		1.148 35×10^-4	0.998 87	0.009 87
	晾干	a=1.000 09	k=0.058 81	c=0.008 08		3.795 39×10^-4	0.997 02	0.018 41
5	晒干	a=0.063 4	k₀=0.006 68	k₁=0.334 66	b=0.941 22	1.209 75×10^-4	0.998 88	0.009 85
	晾干	a=1.136 23	k₀=0.063 71	k₁=0.176 55	b=-0.151 11	2.976 35×10^-4	0.997 76	0.015 97
6	晒干	a=0.982 32	c=0.705 66	l=1.584 15		7.401 32×10^-4	0.992 69	0.025 08
	晾干	a=1.005 71	c=0.312 19	l=2.328 44		3.903 89×10^-4	0.996 93	0.018 67
7	晒干	c=0.567 47	l=1.368 49	n=0.914 99		5.640 45×10^-4	0.994 43	0.021 90
	晾干	c=0.128 24	l=1.563 97	n=1.046 92		3.314 66×10^-4	0.997 4	0.017 21

表3

图3

参考文献 23

[1]	国家药典委员会. 中华人民共和国药典2020年版一部[M]. 北京: 中国医药科技出版社, 2020: 77.
[2]	YU L, CHENG J, HUANG W J, et al. Liposome intracellular delivery of Salvia miltiorrhiza Bge. deprivative DS-201 improves its BK_Ca channel-activating and vasorelaxing effects[J]. Science Bulletin, 2016, 61(8): 622-631. DOI: 10.1007/s11434-016-1046-6. doi: 10.1007/s11434-016-1046-6
[3]	LIM C, LIM S, LEE B, et al. Effect of methanol extract of Salviae miltiorrhizae Radix in high-fat diet-induced hyperlipidemic mice[J]. Chinese Medicine, 2017, 12: 29. DOI: 10.1186/s13020-017-0150-0. doi: 10.1186/s13020-017-0150-0
[4]	CHAN P, LIU I M, LI Y X, et al. Antihypertension induced by tanshinone IIA isolated from the roots of Salvia miltiorrhiza[J]. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine: ECAM, 2011, 2011: 392627. DOI: 10.1093/ecam/nep056. doi: 10.1093/ecam/nep056
[5]	ZENG X, ZHENG Y Y, LIU Y L, et al. Chemical composition, quality control, pharmacokinetics, pharmacological properties and clinical applications of Fufang Danshen Tablet: A systematic review[J]. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 2021, 278: 114310. DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2021.114310. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2021.114310
[6]	屠燕, 邱实, 董志颖, 等. 丹参炮制方法的历史沿革研究[J]. 中国中药杂志, 2021, 46(18): 4683-4688. DOI: 10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.20210309.302. doi: 10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.20210309.302
[7]	桑梦如, 黄楚璇, 吴啟南, 等. 不同规格商品丹参质量比较研究[J]. 中国现代中药, 2017, 19(3): 430-435. DOI: 10.13313/j.issn.1673-4890.2017.3.025. doi: 10.13313/j.issn.1673-4890.2017.3.025
[8]	LI X B, WANG W, ZHOU G J, et al. Production of salvianolic acid B in roots of Salvia miltiorrhiza (Danshen) during the post-harvest drying process[J]. Molecules, 2012, 17(3): 2388-2407. DOI: 10.3390/molecules17032388. doi: 10.3390/molecules17032388
[9]	侯晓杰, 张建锋, 李玮, 等. 不同加工方法对丹参中丹酚酸B和醇溶性浸出物的影响[J]. 中国现代中药, 2019, 21(2): 218-221. DOI: 10.13313/j.issn.1673-4890.20180710005. doi: 10.13313/j.issn.1673-4890.20180710005
[10]	尉广飞, 李翠, 刘谦, 等. 干燥前水洗对丹参活性成分的影响[J]. 中草药, 2015, 46(16): 2467-2470. DOI: 10.7501/j.issn.0253-2670.2015.16.022. doi: 10.7501/j.issn.0253-2670.2015.16.022
[11]	戚莹雪, 李敏, 鞠龙泰, 等. 丹参干燥失水过程中13种有效成分变化研究[J]. 辽宁中医药大学学报, 2019, 21(9): 63-66. DOI: 10.13194/j.issn.1673-842x.2019.09.017. doi: 10.13194/j.issn.1673-842x.2019.09.017
[12]	孔明明, 燕蔚, 王志强, 等. 六种不同干燥加工方法对丹参主要成分含量的影响[J]. 中药材, 2020, 43(4): 847-852. DOI: 10.13863/j.issn1001-4454.2020.04.012. doi: 10.13863/j.issn1001-4454.2020.04.012
[13]	周铜水. 丹参的主要活性成分丹酚酸B是采后干燥胁迫诱导的产物[J]. 中国现代中药, 2013, 15(3): 211-218. DOI: 10.13313/j.issn.1673-4890.2013.03.019. doi: 10.13313/j.issn.1673-4890.2013.03.019
[14]	周涛, 罗春梅, 张松林, 等. 丹参干燥过程中化学成分变化规律研究[J]. 中国中药杂志, 2019, 44(21): 4634-4640. DOI: 10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.20190804.303. doi: 10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.20190804.303
[15]	周涛. 丹参化学成分积累与转化[D]. 泸州: 西南医科大学, 2020.
[16]	张雪梅. 丹参、黄芩药材趁鲜加工关键技术与质量影响研究[D]. 咸阳: 西北农林科技大学, 2021.
[17]	张军, 戴衍朋, 石典花, 等. 丹参药材的产地加工工艺研究[J]. 中国药房, 2019, 30(13): 1807-1811. DOI: 10.6039/j.issn.1001-0408.2019.13.16. doi: 10.6039/j.issn.1001-0408.2019.13.16
[18]	吴瑛, 孙静, 王昌利. 丹参饮片产地加工鲜切法的研究[J]. 陕西中医, 2008, 29(12): 1668-1669. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7369.2008.12.078. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7369.2008.12.078
[19]	赵志刚, 郜舒蕊, 闫滨滨, 等. 丹参药材产地趁鲜切制可行性初探[J]. 中华中医药杂志, 2017, 32(2): 797-800.
[20]	杜利平, 刘伟, 王晓, 等. 丹参热风干燥特性及动力学模型研究[J]. 天然产物研究与开发, 2017, 29(增刊1):106-112.DOI:10.16333/j.1001-6880.2017.S.023 doi: 10.16333/j.1001-6880.2017.S.023
[21]	FALADE K O, ABBO E S. Air-drying and rehydration characteristics of date palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.) fruits[J]. Journal of Food Engineering, 2007, 79(2): 724-730. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2006.01.081. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2006.01.081
[22]	赵梦月, 段续, 任广跃, 等. 山茱萸微波冷冻干燥动力学及品质变化分析[J]. 食品与机械, 2021, 37(11): 111-117. DOI: 10.13652/j.issn.1003-5788.2021.11.020. doi: 10.13652/j.issn.1003-5788.2021.11.020
[23]	田华. 生姜微波干燥动力学模型构建[J]. 保鲜与加工, 2020, 20(1): 127-132. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-6221.2020.01.021. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-6221.2020.01.021

模型序号	模型名称
1	Lewis
2	Page
3	Henderson and Pabis
4	Logarithmic
5	Two-term Model
6	Simplified Fick's diffusion
7	Modifield Page equation-Ⅱ