【作者】 陶德欣；

【导师】 刘雷；

【作者基本信息】 四川农业大学 ， 作物栽培学与耕作学， 2011， 硕士

【摘要】 本文以2009年四川省27个主要产烟县烤后烟叶包括上部叶(B2F)、中部叶(C3F)和下部叶(X2F)为供试材料,采用描述统计、多重比较、聚类分析、主成分分析和典型相关等统计分析方法,分析了四川省烟区烤烟外观质量、评吸质量、常规化学成分指标区域特征,探讨了主要常规化学成分含量及衍生值合评吸质量指标的关系,比较了烟区间挥发性致香成分差异,其结论如下：1、烟叶外观特征。就烤烟上部叶(B2F)和中部叶(C3F)而言,凉山烟区颜色处于“橘黄”色域,与各烟区差异显著,泸州烟区处“柠檬黄”色域；凉山烟区成熟度处于“成熟”档次且与各烟区差异显著,其他各烟区处于“完熟”或“尚熟”档次；凉山和攀枝花叶片结构基本处于“疏松”档次且与各烟区差异显著,其他各烟区处于“尚疏松”档次；各烟区身份均处于“中等”档次；油分处于“有”～“稍有”档次；凉山烟区色度处于“强”档次,其他各烟区次之。就下部叶(X2F)而言,宜宾烟区处于“橘黄”色域且与各烟区差异显著,泸州烟区处在“柠檬黄”色域；宜宾烟区成熟度处于“成熟”档次且与各烟区差异显著,其他各烟区处于“完熟”或“尚熟”档次；宜宾烟区叶片结构处于“疏松”档次且与各烟区差异显著,其他各烟区处于“尚疏松”档次；凉山烟区身份处于“中等”档次,广元烟区处于“稍厚、薄”档次；各烟区油分均处于“有”档次；色度各烟区均处于“强”档次,烟区间差异不显著。2、烟叶内在烟气品质特征。就烤烟上部叶(B2F)而言,宜宾烟区劲头处于“稍大”范畴,其他烟区均处于“较大”范畴；浓度均处于“稍浓”范畴；攀枝花和凉山烟区香气质处于“较好”范畴,其他烟区均处于“稍好”范畴攀枝花和凉山烟区香气量处于“较足”范畴,其他烟区均处于“尚足”范畴；攀枝花和凉山烟区余味处于“略舒适”范畴,其他烟区均处于“尚舒适”范畴中部叶(C3F),劲头均处于“稍大”范畴；浓度均处于“较浓”范畴；香气质均处于“较好”范畴；香气量均处于“较足”范畴；宜宾烟区以为处于“尚舒适”范畴,其他烟区均处于“略舒适”范畴；攀枝花和凉山烟区杂气处于“微有”范畴,其他烟区均处于“略有”范畴；宜宾烟区均刺激性处于“有”范畴,其他烟区处于“微有”范畴；甜度均处于“中等”～“较强”范畴。3、烟叶化学品质特征。以烤烟中部叶为材料,研究了常规化学成分区域特征。总糖含量次序为：攀枝花>凉山>广元>泸州>宜宾,广元、攀枝花和凉山烟区较高且高于全省平均值且攀枝花和凉山与其他烟区差异显著。还原糖含量次序为：凉山>广元>攀枝花>宜宾>泸州。总烟碱含量次序为,宜宾>泸州>凉山>广元>攀枝花；宜宾烟区总烟碱含量在各等均相对较高。糖碱比为：广元>攀枝花>凉山>泸州>宜宾,宜宾在各等级各烟区中糖碱比均较小。烤烟氯含量在各烟区次序为：攀枝花>广元和泸州>宜宾>凉山。钾含量次序：攀枝花和泸州>宜宾>广元>凉山。烤烟钾氯比：中部叶(C3F)是凉山>泸州>攀枝花>宜宾>广元,下部叶(X2F)是凉山>泸州>宜宾>攀枝花>广元。总氮含量：中部叶(C3F)宜宾>泸州>广元>凉山>攀枝花,下部叶(X2F)泸州>宜宾>广元>凉山>攀枝花。氮碱比：上部叶(B2F)是攀枝花>广元>凉山>泸州>宜宾,中部叶(C3F)泸州>广元>>凉山攀枝花>宜宾,下部叶(X2F)攀枝花>广元>泸州>凉山>宜宾。4、常规化学成分与评吸质量关系。本文采用典型相关分析得出,烤烟评吸指标劲头值与烤烟常规化学成分总烟碱含量和氮碱比值关系密切,随着烤烟感官评吸指标劲头值提高,烤烟常规化学成分总烟碱含量和氮碱比值也呈现提高,且达到显著水平；随劲头值提高,总糖含量呈明显降低,总烟碱和糖碱比则呈明显提高,且达到显著水平,甜度则与则与之相反；随总氮含量提高,烤烟评吸指标余味和刺激呈明显提高,氮碱比值则与评吸质量关系则相反。5、烤烟挥发性致香物质特征。对5大烟区挥发致香成分进行了主成分分析：广元烟区烤烟挥发性香气成分中各主成分得分和各地样本挥发性香气物质总得分以太公烟叶中的香气综合质量最好得分最高,为1.88,城北稍低,为-4.68；宜宾烟区：下溪乡的烟叶香气综合质量最好,得分最高,为1.94,落木柔镇较低,为-2.56；泸州烟区：麻城镇麻城村烟叶香气综合质量最好,得分最高,为0.685,分水镇终南村得分为-0.558,烟叶香气质量较差；攀枝花烟区：房田乡大田村的烟叶香气综合质量最好,得分最高,为2.56,大龙潭乡干坝子村烟叶香气质量最差,得分为-1.683；凉山烟区：竹寿政府点的烟叶香气综合质量最好,得分最高,为0.015,太平区太平镇烟叶香气质量最差,得分为-0.021。更多还原

【Abstract】 This paper took B2F, C3F, X2F from 27 Sichuan tobacco growing areas in 2009 as tested materials. Descriptive statistics, multiple comparison, cluster analysis, principal component analysis, canonical correlation were used to analysis regional characteristics of appearance quality, smoking quality and routine chemical components, investigate the relationship between routine chemical components, derivative and smoking quality, compare volatile aroma and flavor constituents difference among different tobacco growing areas. The results as follows:1.Tobacco leaf appearance characteristics. As B2F and C3F were concerned, color of Liangshan was in orange color gamut and the difference with rest areas was significant. Color of Luzhou was in lemon yellow color gamut. Maturity of Liangshan was in mature grade and the difference with rest areas was significant, while other areas were in full maturity or lacking ripe grade. Leaf structure of Liangshan and Pan Zhihua were in loose grade basically and the difference with rest areas was significant while other areas were in lacking loose grade. Identity were all in moderate grade. Oil were all in oily to less oily grade. Chroma of Liangshan was in strong grade, while other areas took second place.As X2F was concerned, Yibin was in orange color gamut and the difference with rest areas was significant. Color of Luzhou was in lemon yellow color gamut. Maturity of Yibin was in mature grade and the difference with rest areas was significant, while other areas were in full maturity or lacking ripe grade. Leaf structure of Yibin was in loose grade basically and the difference with rest areas was significant while other areas were in lacking loose grade. Identity of Liangshan was in moderate grade. Identity of Guangyuan was in fleshy or thin grade. Oil were all in oily grade. Chroma of different areas were in strong grade, while the differences among them were not significant.2.Tobacco leaf internal quality characteristics. As B2F was concerned, strength of Yibin was in greatish category, while other areas were in great category. Smoke concentration were all in less strong category. Aroma quality of Panzhihua and Liangshan were in good category, while other areas were in less good category. Aroma quantity of Panzhihua and Liangshan were in more category, while other areas were in less more category. After-taste of Panzhihua and Liangshan were in less easiness category, other while other areas were in little easiness category.As C3F was concerned, strength were all in greatish category. Smoke concentration were all in strong category. Aroma quality were in good category, while other areas were in less good category. Aroma quantity were all in more category. After-taste of Yibin was in little easiness category, while other areas were in less easiness category. Offensive odor of Panzhihua and Liangshan were in least category, while other areas were in little category. Irritation property of Yibin was in a little category, while other areas were in little category. Sweetness were all in medium to little strong category.3. Tobacco leaf chemical quality characteristics. Regional characteristics of routine chemical components was studied using B2F as materials. The order of total sugar was Panzhihua, Liangshan, Guangyuan, Luzhou, Yibin. Total sugar content of Guangyuan, Panzhihua and Liangshan were higher than average. There were significant difference between Panzhihua,Liangshan and other areas. The order of reducing sugar content was Liangshan, Guangyuan, Panzhihua, Yibin and Luzhou. The order of nicotine content was Yibin, Luzhou, Liangshan, Guangyuan and Panzhihua. Nicotine content of Yibin was higher. The order of sugar-nicotine ratio was Guangyuan, Panzhihua, Liangshan, Luzhou and Yibin. The sugar-nicotine ratio of Yibin was lower. The order of chlorine was Panzhihua, Guangyuan and Luzhou, Yibin, Liangshan. The order of potassium was Panzhihua and Luzhou, Yibin, Guangyuan, Liangshan. The order of potassium-chlorine ratio was Guangyuan, Panzhihua, Liangshan, Luzhou, Yibin (B2F), Liangshan, Luzhou, Panzhihua, Yibin, Guangyuan(C3F), Liangshan, Luzhou, Yibin, Panzhihua, Guangyuan(X2F).The order of total nitrogen was Yibin, Luzhou, Guangyuan, Liangshan, Panzhihua(B2F), Yibin, Luzhou, Guangyuan, Liangshan, Panzhihua(C3F),Luzhou, Yibin, Guangyuan Liangshan, Panzhihua(X2F).The order of nitrogen-nicotine ratio was Panzhihua Guangyuan, Liangshan, Luzhou, Yibin(B2F), Luzhou, Guangyuan, Liangshan, Panzhihua, Yibin(C3F)Panzhihua, Guangyuan Luzhou, Liangshan, Yibin(X2F). 4.Relationship between routine chemical components and smoking quality. Canonical correlation analysis was used to choose several integrated variables, replace the correlation between two group variables. There was a close relationship between strength and nicotine, nitrogen-nicotine ratio. As strength increased, total-sugar content decreased significantly and nicotine, nitrogen-nicotine ratio increased significantly, but sweetness was reversed. As nicotine increased, after-taste and irritation property increased significantly.5 Neutral aroma components characteristics. Spend time zone of 5 to the volatile incense component principal component analysis:Guangyuan volatile aroma compositions were in scoring and the principal components across volatile aromatic substance sample with the total score of the comprehensive quality of Taigong scores highest best 1.88, Chengbei is a bit low, for-4.68; Yibin smoke area:the aroma of tobacco leaf next creek township comprehensive quality is best, scores highest since, fall a wood, low, soft town for-tools; Luzhou smoke area:hemp town Macheng village aroma of tobacco leaf comprehensive quality is best, scores highest 0.685, water, for the 0.558 ZhongNa village for-scoring, aroma of tobacco leaf quality is poorer; Panzhihua smoke area:the room of TianCun field township large comprehensive aroma of tobacco leaf quality is best, scores highest tools, Dalongtan, dry bazi village aroma of tobacco leaf quality score for-the worst and the 1.683; Liangshan smoke area:bamboo longevity government point aroma of tobacco leaf quality best, scores highest comprehensive, TaiPing 0.015, goose aroma of tobacco leaf quality score for-the worst and the 0.021.更多还原