甘薯块根可溶性糖组分特征及其与食味的关联分析

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2021.01.003

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】可溶性糖含量是甘薯块根食用品质和加工性能的重要指标,研究可溶性糖组分特征及其与食用品质的关系,有助于了解块根可溶性糖组分在加工中的变化及其对食味的影响,为甘薯鲜食与加工的品种选择、专用品种选育和种质资源利用提供依据。【方法】采用高效液相色谱蒸发光散射检测器法（HPLC-ELSD）测定102份甘薯种质资源的生薯和蒸熟薯的可溶性糖组分含量,对不同干物率类型的块根可溶性糖组分特征进行分析,并用相关性和逐步线性回归分析可溶性糖组分与食味的关系及其对食味的贡献。【结果】甘薯的生薯和熟薯均含有果糖、葡萄糖、蔗糖、麦芽糖4种可溶性糖。在生薯中,蔗糖含量最高,平均含量为25.79 mg·(g·FW)^-1,占生薯可溶性糖的45.31%;果糖和葡萄糖含量相近,关系密切,果糖含量（y）和葡萄糖含量（x）的拟合方程为y=0.807x+1.275;麦芽糖含量最低,平均含量为6.79 mg·(g·FW)^-1,仅占生薯可溶性糖的11.92%。生薯可溶性糖含量高低主要由果糖和葡萄糖含量决定,通常情况下,低干物率品种具有更高的生薯可溶性糖和果糖含量,生化甜度更好。在蒸熟过程中块根中可溶性糖含量变化主要在于产生了大量麦芽糖,麦芽糖含量从生薯的0.96—24.67 mg·(g·FW)^-1提高至14.80—136.16 mg·(g·FW)^-1。熟薯可溶性糖含量高低是由麦芽糖含量决定的,中、高干物率类型具有更高的熟薯可溶性糖和麦芽糖含量。甘薯块根食味增量主要来源于蒸熟过程中产生的可溶性糖;麦芽糖、果糖、蔗糖是甘薯块根食味的重要影响因子;麦芽糖对食味增量的贡献率近50%,对香味和质地的作用尤为突出;果糖对黏度的贡献最大,而蔗糖对质地的贡献优于果糖。【结论】生薯可溶性糖和果糖含量是反映甘薯生薯甜度的重要指标,熟薯可溶性糖、麦芽糖含量是反映甘薯食味的重要指标。麦芽糖、果糖、蔗糖是影响甘薯块根食用品质及加工性能的重要可溶性糖组分。筛选出甘薯块根可溶性糖特异种质11份。

关键词: 甘薯, 种质资源, 可溶性糖组分, 食味, 相关性

Abstract:

【Objective】The soluble sugar content in sweetpotato storage root is an important indicator of edible quality and processing performance. The study on the characteristics of soluble sugar components and their relationship with edible quality can help to understand the changes of soluble sugar components and their influence on taste during processing, providing a basis for the selection of varieties for table use and processing, and breeding and utilization of germplasm resources for special use. 【Method】 The content of soluble sugar components in raw and steamed storage roots of 102 sweetpotato germplasm were determined by high performance liquid chromatography with evaporative light scattering detector (HPLC-ELSD). The characteristics were analyzed according to dry matter content types, and correlation and stepwise linear regression were used to analyze the relationship between soluble sugar components and taste and their contribution to edible quality. 【Result】 There were four soluble sugars of fructose, glucose, sucrose and maltose in both raw and steamed storage roots. In the raw storage root, the sucrose content was the highest, with an average content of 25.79 mg·(g·FW)^{- 1}, accounting for 45.31% of the soluble sugar. The fructose and glucose content were similar and closely related, and the fitting equation for fructose content (y) and glucose content (x) was y = 0.807x + 1.275. The maltose content was the lowest, with an average content of 6.79 mg·(g·FW)^-1, which only accounts for 11.92% of the soluble sugar. The content of soluble sugar in raw storage root mainly depended on the fructose and glucose content. Generally, the varieties with low dry matter content had higher content of soluble sugar and fructose in raw storage root, and the biochemical sweetness was better. During the process of steaming, the changes of soluble sugar content were mainly due to the production of a large number of maltose, which increased from 0.96-24.67 mg·(g·FW)^-1 of raw root to 14.80-136.16 mg·(g·FW)^-1. The content of soluble sugar in steamed storage root was determined by the maltose content, and the variety types with medium or high dry matter content had higher content of soluble sugar and maltose. The improvement of taste quality mainly attributed to the increasing soluble sugar content during the process of steaming. Maltose, fructose and sucrose were the important factors affecting the taste quality, and maltose contributed nearly 50% to the increase of taste quality, particularly to the flavor and texture. Fructose content contributed the most to the viscosity while sucrose contributed more to the texture than fructose. 【Conclusion】 The content of soluble sugar and fructose in raw storage root was an important indicator to evaluate the sweetness of raw sweetpotato. The content of soluble sugar and maltose in steamed storage root was an important indicator to evaluate the edible quality of sweetpotato. Maltose, fructose and sucrose were the important soluble sugar components that determined the edible quality and processing performance of sweetpotato. In this study, 11 sweetpotato germplasm with specific soluble sugar in storage root was selected.

Key words: sweetpotato, germplasm resource, soluble sugar component, edible quality, correlation

沈升法,项超,吴列洪,李兵,罗志高. 甘薯块根可溶性糖组分特征及其与食味的关联分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(1): 34-45.

SHEN ShengFa,XIANG Chao,WU LieHong,LI Bing,LUO ZhiGao. Analysis on the Characteristics of Soluble Sugar Components in Sweetpotato Storage Root and Its Relationship with Taste[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2021, 54(1): 34-45.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

链接本文: https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2021.01.003

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/Y2021/V54/I1/34

图/表 9

图1

表1

图2

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

表7

参考文献 36

[1]	ZHU F, XIE Q. Structure of New Zealand sweetpotato starch. Carbohydrate Polymers, 2018(188):181-187.
[2]	SHIKUKU K M, OKELLO J J, WAMBUGU S, SINDI K, LOW J W, MCEWAN M. Nutrition and food security impacts of quality seeds of biofortified orange-fleshed sweetpotato: Quasi-experimental evidence from Tanzania. World Development, 2019,124:e104646.
[3]	LOW J W, THIELE G. Understanding innovation: The development and scaling of orange-fleshed sweetpotato in major African food systems. Agricultural Systems, 2020,179:e102770.
[4]	BECHOFF A, DUFOUR D, DHUIQUE-MAYER C, MAROUAE C, REYNES M, WESTBY A. Effect of hot air, solar and sun drying treatments on provitamin A retention in orange-flfleshed sweetpotato. Journal of Food Engineering, 2019,92(2):164-171. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.10.034
[5]	HUMMEL M, TALSMA E F, DER HONING A V, GAMA A C, VAN VUGT D, BROUWER I D, SPILLANE C, MARIJKE H, ELISE T, ATI V H, ARTHUR C G, DANIEL V V, INGE D B, CHARLES S. Sensory and cultural acceptability tradeoffs with nutritional content of biofortified orange-fleshed sweetpotato varieties among households with children in Malawi. PLoS ONE, 2018,13(10):e0204754. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204754 pmid: 30335772
[6]	KATAYAMA K, KOBAYSHI A, SAKAI T, KURANOUCHI T, Kai Y. Recent progress in sweetpotato breeding and cultivars for diverse applications in Japan. Breeding Science, 2017,67(1):3-14. doi: 10.1270/jsbbs.16129 pmid: 28465663
[7]	HUANG A S, TANUDJAJA L, LUM D. Content of Alpha-, Beta-carotene and dietary fiber in 18 sweetpotato varieties grown in Hawaii. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 1999,12(2):147-151. doi: 10.1006/jfca.1999.0819
[8]	沈升法, 吴列洪, 李兵. 紫肉甘薯部分营养成分与食味的关联分析. 中国农业科学, 2015,48(3):555-564. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2015.03.15
	SHEN S F, WU L H, LI B. Association analysis between part nutritional compositions and taste of purple-fleshed sweetpotato. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2015,48(3):555-564. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2015.03.15
[9]	NABUBUYA A, NAMUTEBI A, BYARUHANGA Y B, NARVHUS J, WICKLUND T. Influence of development, postharvest handling, and storage conditions on the carbohydrate components of sweetpotato (Ipomea batatas Lam.) roots. Food Science & Nutrition, 2017,5(6):1088-1097. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.496 pmid: 29188036
[10]	WEI S Y, LU G Q, CAO H P. Effects of cooking methods on starch and sugar composition of sweetpotato storage roots. PLoS ONE, 2017,12(8):e0182604. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182604 pmid: 28827808
[11]	吴列洪, 沈升法, 李兵. 甘薯甜度与薯块蒸煮前后糖分的相关性研究. 中国粮油学报, 2012,27(9):25-28.
	WU L H, SHEN S F, LI B. Study on the correlation between sweetness and sugar of sweet potato before and after steaming. Journal of the Chinese Cereals and Oils Association, 2012,27(9):25-28. (in Chinese)
[12]	PICHA D H. HPLC determination of sugars in raw and baked sweetpotatoes. Journal of Food Science, 1985,50(4):1189-1210. doi: 10.1111/jfds.1985.50.issue-4
[13]	MORRISON T A, PRESSEY R, KAYS S J. Changes in alpha- and beta-amylase during storage of sweetpotato lines with varying starch hydrolysis potential. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 1993,118(2):236-242. doi: 10.21273/JASHS.118.2.236
[14]	LA BONTE D R, PICHA D H, JOHNSON H A. Carbohydrate-related changes in sweetpotato storage roots during development. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 2000,125(2):200-204. doi: 10.21273/JASHS.125.2.200
[15]	HUANG Y H, PICHA D H, KILIKI A W, JOHNSON C E. Changes in invertase activities and reducing sugar content in sweetpotato stored at different temperatures. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 1999,47(12):4927-4931. doi: 10.1021/jf9902191 pmid: 10606553
[16]	HUANG C L, LIAO W C, CHAN C F, LAI Y C. Storage performance of Taiwanese sweet potato cultivars. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 2014,51(12):4019-4025. doi: 10.1007/s13197-013-0960-8 pmid: 25477675
[17]	YOOYONGWECH S, SAMPHUMPHUNG T, TISARAM R, THEERAWJTAYA C, CHAUM S. Physiological, morphological changes and storage root yield of sweetpotato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.] under PEG-induced water stress. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-napoca, 2017,45(1):164-171. doi: 10.15835/nbha45110651
[18]	LI X, YANG H Q, LU G Q. Low-temperature conditioning combined with cold storage inducing rapid sweetening of sweetpotato tuberous roots (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam) while inhibiting chilling injury. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 2018,142:1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2018.04.002
[19]	DE ARAUJOA N O, VERASB M L, SANTOSA M N, DE ARAUJOB F F, TELLOB J P, FINGER F L. Sucrose degradation pathways in old-induced sweetening and its impact on the non- enzymatic darkening in sweet potato root. Food Chemistry, 2020,312:e125904.
[20]	GRABOWSKI J A, TRUONG V D, DAUBERT C R. Nutritional and rheological characterization of spray dried sweetpotato powder. Food Science and Technology, 2008,41(2):206-216.
[21]	LAI Y C, HUANG C L, CHAN C F, LIEN C Y, LIAO W C. Studies of sugar composition and starch morphology of baked sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam). Journal of Food Science and Technology, 2013,50(6):1193-1199. doi: 10.1007/s13197-011-0453-6 pmid: 24426034
[22]	张文婷, 陆秋艳. 亚热带水果中糖组分的测定及分析. 营养学报, 2019,41(3):308-312.
	ZHANG W T, LU Q Y. Determination and analysis of sugars in subtropical fruits. Acta Nutrimenta Sinica, 2019,41(3):308-312. (in Chinese)
[23]	CHAN C F, CHIANG C M, LAI Y C, HUANG C L, KAO S C, LIAO W C. Changes in sugar composition during baking and their effects on sensory attributes of baked sweet potatoes. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 2014,51(12):4072-4077. doi: 10.1007/s13197-012-0900-z pmid: 25477683
[24]	占雷雷, 朱国鹏, 刘永华. 4种蔗糖分解酶在甘薯块根品质形成中的作用. 热带作物学报, 2019,40(9):1723-1728.
	ZHAN L L, ZHU G P, LIU Y H. Differential roles of four sucrose-degrading enzymes in the formation of qualities of the storage roots of sweetpotato. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2019,40(9):1723-1728. (in Chinese)
[25]	REES D, OIRSCHOT Q, AKED J. The role of carbohydrates in wound-healing of sweetpotato roots at low humidity. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 2008,50(1):79-86. doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2008.03.019
[26]	YAN H, LI Q, ZHANG Y G, WANG X, LIU Y J, KOU M, TANG W, MA D F. Effects of soil environment on traits of purple-fleshed sweetpotato. Agricultrual Science & Technology, 2017,18(3):516-520, 523.
[27]	陈金斌. HPLC- ELSD法检测蜂蜜饮料中4种可溶性糖含量. 食品研究与开发, 2016,37(24):140-143.
	CHEN J B. Determination of 4 kinds soluble sugar in honey drink by HPLC-ELSD. Food Research and Development, 2016,37(24):140-143. (in Chinese)
[28]	张英, 石雪萍, 张卫明. HPLC-ELSD法与 HPLC-RID法检测蜂蜜中糖分的比较. 中国野生植物资源, 2009,28(1):43-47.
	ZHANG Y, SHI X P, ZHANG W M. Comparison of HPLC-ELSD and HPLC-RID methods in detecting the sugar of honey. Chinese Wild Plant Resources, 2009,28(1):43-47. (in Chinese)
[29]	张娟, 于有伟, 张丽. 加工方法及提取因素对甘薯中可溶性糖含量影响的研究. 食品工业科技, 2013,34(21):254-258, 261.
	ZHANG J, YU Y W, ZHANG L. The influential research of processing method and extraction factors on the soluble sugar content of sweet potato. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2013,34(21):254-258, 261. (in Chinese)
[30]	卞科, 刘孝沾. 甘薯中可溶性糖的 HPLC 法测定及其在加工中的变化研究. 河南工业大学学报(自然科学版), 2012,33(1):1-5.
	BIAN K, LIU X Z. Determination of soluble sugars in sweet potato by HPLC and its changes during processing. Journal of Henan University of Technology (Natural Science Edition), 2012,33(1):1-5. (in Chinese)
[31]	SATO A, TRUONG V D, JOHANNINGSMEIER S D, REYNOLDS R, PECOTA K V, YENCHO G C. Chemical constituents of sweetpotato genotypes in relation to textural characteristics of processed French fries. Journal of Food Science, 2018,83(1):60-73. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.13978 pmid: 29178339
[32]	LEBOT V. Rapid quantitative determination of maltose and total sugars in sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L. [Lam.]) varieties using HPTLC. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 2017,54(3):718-726. doi: 10.1007/s13197-017-2510-2 pmid: 28298685
[33]	SUN J B, SEVERSON R F, KAYS S J. Effect of heating temperature and microwave pretreatment on the formation of sugars and volatiles in Jewel sweetpotato. Journal of Food Quality, 1994,17(6):447-456. doi: 10.1111/jfq.1994.17.issue-6
[34]	韩磊, 唐金鑫, 吴亚飞, 王宗濂. 含糖类物料的喷雾干燥. 林产化学与工业, 2006,26(2):117-121.
	HAN L, TANG J X, WU Y F, WANG Z L. Spray drying of substances containing sugars. Chemistry and Industry of Forest Products, 2006,26(2):117-121. (in Chinese)
[35]	周张涛, 袁博, 王志荣, 田华, 何东平. 不同还原糖对浓香葵花籽油风味的影响. 食品工业, 2019,40(7):20-23.
	ZHOU Z T, YUAN B, WANG Z R, TIAN H, HE D P. Effect of different reducing sugars on mail lard reaction flavor of fragrant sunflower seed oil and process optimization. The Food Industry, 2019,40(7):20-23. (in Chinese)
[36]	刘俊辉, 张建勋, 宗永立. 食品香味释放. 化学通报, 2010,23(12):1099-1105.
	LIU J H, ZHANG J X, ZONG Y L. Progress of flavor release from foods. Chemistry Online, 2010,23(12):1099-1105. (in Chinese)

类型 Type	项目 Item	生薯Raw (mg·(g·FW)^-1)					熟薯Steamed (mg·(g·FW)^-1)
类型 Type	项目 Item	Fru	Glu	Suc	Mal	Sol	Fru	Glu	Suc	Mal	Sol
试验群体 Test group	最小值Min	1.82	1.58	6.49	0.92	34.27	1.88	1.09	7.24	14.80	56.70
	最大值Max	26.05	30.46	59.21	24.67	82.99	25.14	27.09	60.23	136.16	172.95
	平均值Mean	11.58	12.76	25.79	6.79	56.91	10.09	10.75	26.38	63.85	111.07
	变异系数CV(%)	50.46	55.35	37.93	61.08	15.50	53.99	57.73	38.36	43.80	21.92
	比例Proportion (%)	20.34	22.43	45.31	11.92	100.00	9.08	9.68	23.75	57.49	100.00
低干物率 Low dry matter content	最小值Min	9.75	10.05	7.90	0.92	45.18	8.30	8.35	8.35	14.80	56.70
	最大值Max	26.05	30.46	59.21	10.13	82.99	25.14	27.09	60.23	82.03	138.44
	平均值Mean	16.86	18.63	23.17	4.00	62.67	14.87	15.79	24.08	46.35	101.08
	变异系数CV(%)	23.87	28.01	44.81	53.85	11.57	29.48	31.49	44.51	36.34	16.55
	比例Proportion (%)	26.91	29.73	36.98	6.38	100.00	14.71	15.62	23.82	45.85	100.00
中干物率 Medium dry matter content	最小值Min	1.82	1.58	12.41	3.00	38.55	1.92	1.42	11.64	28.15	65.33
	最大值Max	19.60	26.28	41.05	14.12	71.26	17.78	21.43	44.68	121.62	162.76
	平均值Mean	11.29	12.85	25.29	7.26	56.69	9.82	10.91	25.56	70.70	117.00
	变异系数CV(%)	38.63	44.42	29.53	45.51	13.61	39.83	44.94	29.63	37.49	21.43
	比例Proportion (%)	19.92	22.66	44.61	12.81	100.00	8.39	9.33	21.85	60.43	100.00
高干物率 High dry matter content	最小值Min	2.33	2.33	6.49	2.48	34.27	1.88	1.09	7.24	18.93	66.53
	最大值Max	15.32	21.22	43.34	24.67	64.99	12.53	16.86	47.21	136.16	172.95
	平均值Mean	6.75	7.14	28.60	9.11	51.60	5.73	5.87	29.10	75.88	116.59
	变异系数CV(%)	49.04	59.71	34.12	49.29	14.21	49.53	61.58	35.46	38.18	22.99
	比例Proportion (%)	13.08	13.83	55.42	17.66	100.00	4.91	5.04	24.96	65.09	100.00

组分 Component		增量Increment (mg·(g·FW)^-1)				正向增量Positive increment
组分 Component		最小值 Min	最大值 Max	平均值 Mean	含量占比 Proportion of content (%)	品种数 No. of variety	品种数占比 Proportion of variety No. (%)
Fru	-4.95		1.86	-1.46	-1.40	15	14.71
Glu	-6.42		2.04	-1.97	-1.90	8	7.84
Suc	-6.03		8.80	0.64	0.51	60	58.82
Mal	5.21		122.41	57.51	49.41	102	100.00
Sol	-3.46		123.94	54.73	46.62	101	99.02

品质性状 Quality trait		生薯Raw												干物率 Dry matter content	食味Taste
品质性状 Quality trait		Fru	Glu	Suc	Mal	Sol	Bcs	Fru	Glu	Suc	Mal	Sol	Bcs	干物率 Dry matter content	Swe	Vis	Tex	Fra	Fib
生薯 Raw	Glu	0.976**
	Suc	-0.624**	-0.623**
	Mal	-0.517**	-0.507**	0.155
	Sol	0.509**	0.518**	0.269**	-0.107
	Bcs	0.742**	0.732**	0.049	-0.437**	0.927**
熟薯 Steamed	Fru	0.974**	0.947**	-0.592**	-0.504**	0.509**	0.734**
	Glu	0.960**	0.978**	-0.607**	-0.510**	0.507**	0.722**	0.975**
	Suc	-0.584**	-0.589**	0.953**	0.188	0.287**	0.065*	-0.535**	-0.560**
	Mal	-0.393**	-0.353**	-0.099	0.540**	-0.399**	-0.538**	-0.394**	-0.351**	-0.097
	Sol	-0.232*	-0.189	-0.005	0.456**	-0.096	-0.243*	-0.203*	-0.162	0.042	0.931**
	Bcs	0.346**	0.362**	0.037	0.017	0.568**	0.517**	0.422**	0.426**	0.154	0.331**	0.647**
干物率 Dry matter content		-0.810**	-0.774**	0.280**	0.599**	-0.565**	-0.769**	-0.787**	-0.764**	0.265**	0.541**	0.361**	-0.267**
食味 Taste	Swe	-0.080	-0.053	0.170	0.308**	0.238*	0.093	-0.070	-0.039	0.135	0.563**	0.677**	0.567**	0.101
	Vis	0.317**	0.328**	-0.177	-0.037	0.259**	0.279**	0.301**	0.332**	-0.235*	0.392**	0.504**	0.541**	-0.274**	0.684**
	Tex	-0.235*	-0.213*	0.187	0.366**	0.052	-0.100	-0.226*	-0.197*	0.144	0.643**	0.698**	0.445**	0.251*	0.827**	0.673**
	Fra	-0.141	-0.108	0.084	0.298**	0.053	-0.065	-0.128	-0.092	0.045	0.649**	0.712**	0.486**	0.193	0.875**	0.654**	0.817 **
	Fib	0.138	0.131	-0.078	-0.018	0.101	0.115	0.143	0.130	-0.073	0.235*	0.304**	0.327**	-0.044	0.464**	0.380**	0.416**	0.537**
	Tts	-0.014	0.008	0.077	0.247*	0.199*	0.091	-0.014	0.017	0.029	0.604**	0.707**	0.576**	0.060	0.957**	0.785**	0.855**	0.917**	0.543**

类型	熟薯Steamed					食味Taste
Type	Fru	Glu	Suc	Mal	Sol	Swe	Vis	Tex	Fra	Tts
低干物率和中干物率	-0.661**	-0.617**	0.23	0.626**	0.496**	0.306*	0.231	0.557**	0.429**	0.324**
Low and medium dry matter content	-0.661**	-0.617**	0.23	0.626**	0.496**	0.306*	0.231	0.557**	0.429**	0.324**
高干物率 High dry matter content	-0.372*	-0.385*	0.019	0.277	0.216	-0.006	-0.203	-0.111	-0.03	-0.025

食味指标 Taste index	最优标准化回归方程 Optimal standardized regression equation	偏相关系数Partial correlation coefficient		贡献率Contribution rate(%)
食味指标 Taste index	最优标准化回归方程 Optimal standardized regression equation	x₁	x₂	x₁	x₂
Tts	y = 76.817+1.567x₁+2.418x₂	0.548**	0.707**	39.32	60.68
Swe	y = 76.606+1.418x₁+2.016x₂	0.564**	0.692**	41.29	58.71
Vis	y = 75.762+2.444x₁+3.000x₂	0.459**	0.531**	44.89	55.11
Tex	y = 77.319+1.240x₁+2.599x₂	0.445**	0.718**	32.30	67.70
Fra	y = 77.378+1.134x₁+2.341x₂	0.423**	0.689**	32.63	67.37