Pettinati J D, Ackerman S A, Jenkins R K, Happich M L, Phillips J G
J Assoc Off Anal Chem. 1983 May;66(3):759-65.
Analyses of meat samples after preparation with either a bowl cutter or by the official procedure with a food chopper were compared for homogeneity of comminution and for differences in fat, moisture, and protein content. Cutting time in the bowl cutter was limited to minimize temperature rise in samples. Beef chuck, pork shoulder, and beef shank, cheek, and tongue were used in the study. Variances of replicate analysis data for the 5 meat types were pooled for either cutter or chopper treatment and for each analyzed component. Sample portions cut and mixed by using the bowl cutter were more homogeneous than those ground with a food chopper. Comparative accuracy was indicated by fat and moisture means: 5 were in good agreement and 5 differed significantly; 3 of 5 paired protein means differed significantly but were within 0.3% protein. Results on precision and accuracy as well as the simplicity and convenience of the bowl cutter procedure favor its use as an alternative to a food chopper for preparing meat samples for analysis.
比较了使用碗式切碎机或按照官方程序用食品切碎机处理后的肉样在粉碎均匀性以及脂肪、水分和蛋白质含量差异方面的情况。碗式切碎机的切割时间受到限制，以尽量减少样品温度升高。本研究使用了牛肩肉、猪肩肉以及牛小腿肉、脸颊肉和舌头肉。将5种肉类的重复分析数据的方差汇总，用于切碎机或切碎器处理以及每种分析成分。使用碗式切碎机切割并混合的样品部分比用食品切碎机研磨的样品更均匀。脂肪和水分均值表明了比较准确性：5组吻合度良好，5组差异显著；5对蛋白质均值中有3对差异显著，但蛋白质含量相差在0.3%以内。关于精度和准确性以及碗式切碎机程序的简单性和便利性的结果表明，它可作为替代食品切碎机用于制备分析用肉样的一种选择。
