四川省烟区烤烟质量区域特征研究
|
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。
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.
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。
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.
引文
[1]肖协忠.烟草化学[M].北京：中国农业出版社,1997
[2]左天觉,朱尊权.烟草的生产、生理和生物化学[M].上海：远东出版社,1993
[3]朱尊权.烟叶的可用性与卷烟的安全性[J].烟草科技,2000,(8)：3-6
[4]朱尊权.重点品牌的原料保障-论政策及农、商、工交接收购方式的创新[J].烟草科技,2007,(11)：5-7
[5]Tso,T.C. Tobacco as potential food and smoking material. Beitr.zur Tabakforsh,1977,9, (2):63-66
[6]韩锦峰,林木森,王瑞新.优质烤烟规范化栽培技术[M].郑州：河南科学技术出版社,1990
[7]中国农科院青州烟草研究所.中国烟草栽培学[M].上海：上海科学技术出版社,2005.
[8]林彩丽,杨铁钊.不同基因型烟草生长过程中主要化学成分的变化[J].烟草科技,2003,(1)：30-34.
[9]刘百战等.不同部位、度及颜色的云南烤烟中某些中性香味成分的分析研究[J].中国烟草报,1993,(3)：46-53
[10]梁洪波,李念胜等.烤烟烟叶颜色与内在品质的关系[J].中国烟草科学,2002,(1)：9-11
[11]王允白,王宝华,郭承芳等.影响烤烟评吸质量的主要化学成分研究[J].中国农业科学,1998,31(1)：89-91
[12]李东亮,许自成,陈景云等.烤烟主要物理性状与化学成分的典型相关分析[J].河南农业大学学报,2007,41(5)：492-497
[13]梁洪波,李念胜等.烤烟烟叶颜色与内在品质的关系[J].中国烟草科学,2002,(1)：9-11
[14]周冀衡,朱小平,王彦亭等.烟草生理与生物化学[M].合肥：中国科学技术大学出版社,1996.
[15]Moseley,J.M. The relationship of maturity of the leaf at harvest and certain properties of the cured leaf of flue-cured tobacco[J].Tobacco Science,1963,(7):67-75.
[16]Walker,E. K..Some chemical characteristics of the cured leaves of flued-cured tobacco relative to time of harvest, stalk position and chlorophyll content of the green leaves [J].Tobacco Science.1968, (12):58-65.
[17]赵立红.云南省主产烟区烟叶化学成分的部位特征[J].中国农学通报,2007,24(8)：241-246
[18]中国农科院青州烟草研究所.中国烟草栽培学[M].上海：科学技术出版社,2005：125-128
[19]杨辉,张庆明,杨超等.兴烟1号烟叶外观品质与内在评吸质量的关系[J].贵州农业科学,2009,37(11)：60-62
[20]闫克玉,赵献章.烟叶分级[M].北京：中国农业出版社,2003
[21]赵献章.烟叶分级[M].北京：中国科学技术出版社,1997
[22]周冀衡,朱小平,王彦亭等.烟草生理与生物化学[M].合肥：中国科学技术大学出版社,1996
[23]R.F.Severson;A.W.Johnson;D.M.Jackson. Cuticular constituents of tobacco:factors fectin g their roduction and their role in insect and disease resistance and smoke quality.Rec. AdV.Tob.Sci.1985(11):105-174
[24]Coussirat.J.C;P.Schlitz;W.W.Reid;Y.Bouteraou.Diterpenes in nicotiana tobacum Genetic vontrol of the production of(z)-abienol and a and pcembratriene diols. Ann.du Tabac.SEITA 1984(2):123-130
[25]Gwynn,G.R;R.F.Severson;D.M.Jackson;M.G.StepHenson.Inheritance of sucrose esters containing β-methyl-valeric acid in tobacco.Tob.Sci.1985(29):79-81
[26]Nielson, M.T; G.A.Jones.G.B.Collins. Inheritance pattern for secreting and nonsecretiog glandular trichomes in tobacco.crop Sci.1982(22):1051-1053
[27]刘国顺,汪耀富,符云鹏等.建立“名、优、特”烟叶产区提高烟叶品质和可用性[J].烟草科技,2001,(1)：28-32.
[28]李丹丹,许自成,邢小军等.四川烟区烤烟主要化学成分的变异分析[J].西南农业学报,2008.21(5)：1270-1274
[29]许自成,刘春奎,毕庆文等.中国主产烟区烤烟硫含量的分布特点及与其他化学成分的相关分析[J].郑州轻工业学院学报(自然科学版),2008.23(10)：1-7
[30]肖炳光,朱军,卢秀萍等.烤烟几种主要化学成分的遗传分析[J].作物学报,2005,31(12)：1557-1561
[31]朴世领,金东锡,赵亨哲等.不同品种及施肥量对晒红烟化学成分的影响[J].湖南 农业大学学报(自然科学版),2005,31(3)285-288
[32]汪耀富,高华军,刘国顺等.不同基因型烤烟叶片致香物质含量的对比分析[J].中国农学通报,2005,21(5)：117-120
[33]赵铭钦,赵辉,王文基等.不同基因型烤烟化学成分和致香物质问的相关和通径分析[J]中国烟草科学,2009,30(3)：7-12
[34]赵铭钦,于建春,程玉渊等.烤烟烟叶成熟度与香气质量的关系[J].中国农业大学学报,2005,10(3)：10-14
[35]王树声,孙福山,李雪震等.烟叶香气品质的研究概况及提高我国烟叶香气的技术探讨[A]；跨世纪烟草农业展望和持续发展战略研讨会论文集[C].北京：中国商业出版社,1999,367-373.
[36]韦凤杰,刘国顺,杨永锋等.烤烟成熟过程中类胡萝卜素变化与其降解致香物质关系[J].中国农业科学,2005,38(9)：1882-1889.
[37]赵铭钦,陈秋会,陈红华等.中外烤烟烟叶中挥发性香气物质的对比分析[J].华中农业大学学报,2007,26(6)：875-879
[38]汪耀富,高华军,刘国顺等.氮、磷、钾肥配施对烤烟化学成分和致香物质含量的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2006,12(1)：76-83
[39]史宏志,邸慧慧,赵晓丹等.豫中烤烟烟碱和总氮含量与中性香气成分含量的关系[J].作物学报,2009,35(7)：1299-1303
[40]Wahlberg,I.K;Karlsson,K;Johnson,W.H. Effects of flue-curing and ageing on thevolmile, neutral and acidic constituents of Virginia tobacco. Phytochemistry,1977,16:120-121
[41]史宏志,刘国顺.烟草香味学[M].北京：中国农业出版社,1998
[42]周冀衡,杨虹琦,林桂华等.不同烤烟产区烟叶中主要挥发性香气物质的研究[J].湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2004,30(1)：20-23.
[43]左天觉著；朱尊权译.烟草的生产、生理和生物化学[M].上海：远东出版社,1993.
[44]阎克玉,王海燕,李兴波等.烤烟国家标准(40级)河南烟叶叶片厚度、叶质重及叶片密度研究[J].郑州轻工业学院学报,1999,14(2)：45-50.
[45]刘国顺.国内外烟叶质量差距分析和提高烟叶质量技术途径探讨[J].中国烟草学报,2008,(z1)：54-58
[46]王玉军,谢胜利,邢淑华等.烤烟叶片厚度与主要化学组成相关性研究[J].中国烟草科学,1997,12(1)：11-14.
[47]张永安.提高上部烟叶可用性的化控技术研究[D].湖南农业大学硕士学位论文,2004.
[48]阎克玉,李兴波,赵学亮等.河南烤烟理化指标间的相关性研究.郑州轻工业学院学报(自然科学版)[J].2000,15(3)：20-24.
[49]林平,陈良元,罗登山等.叶丝在线膨胀工艺参数与填充能力的关系研究[J].烟草科技,1998,(6)：5-6.
[50]刘丽,张晓兵,许自成等.烤烟拉力与主要化学成分的关系研究[J].郑州轻工业学院学报(自然科学版),2007,22(4)：1-3.
[51]徐杰,闫克玉,帅红梅等.河南烤烟(40级)酚类物质含量及规律性研究[J].烟草科技,1999,(1)：23-24.
[52]于建军,庞天河,刘国顺等.烤烟香气质与化学成分的相关和通径分析[J].中国农学通报,2006,22(1)：71-73.
[53]薛超群,尹启生,王信民等.烤烟烟叶香气质量与其常规化学成分的相关性[J].烟草科技,2003(9)：27-30.
[54]谭仲夏,秦西云.烟叶主要化学指标与其感官质量的灰色关联分析[J].广西民族大学学报(自然科学版),2008,14(4)：67-72
[55]许自成,郑聪,李丹丹等.烤烟钾含量与主要挥发性香气物质及感官质量的关系分析[J].河南农业大学报,2009,43(4)：354-358
[56]张槐苓.烟草分析与检验[M].郑州：河南科学技术出版社,1994：71-92.
[57]Chaplin.J.E & Miner.CL. Production factors affecting chemical components of tobacco leaf. Rec.Adv.Tob.Sci.1980.
[58]Mulchi,C.L.Chloride effects on agronomic and physical properties of Maryand tobacco. Tob.Sci.1982,26:113-116.
[59]胡国松,郑伟,王震东等.烤烟营养原理[M].北京：科学出版社,2000.
[60]WeeksW.W. Differences in aroma,chemistry, solubilities,and smoking quality of cure flue-cured tobaccos with aglandular and glandular trichomes[J]. Agric.FooChem, 1992,40:1911-1917.
[61]于建军,庞天河,任晓红等.烤烟中性致香物质与评吸结果关系研究[J].河南农业大学学报,2006,40(4)：346-349
[62]周恒,邵惠芳,许自成等.不同醇化阶段复烤片烟化学成分与感官质量的关系[J].2009,12(4)：433-439
[63]孙立娟,李虎林,金哲等.不同成熟度烤烟外观特征及化学成分的变化[J].湖北农业科学,2008,47(3)：318-320
[64]厉福强,张长云,张长华等.贵州湄潭烤烟外观质量因素分析[J].贵州农业科学,2009,37(1)：54-57
[65]黄平俊,欧阳花,易建华等.浏阳烟区不同年份烤烟主要化学成分的变异分析[J].作物杂志,2008(6)：30-32
[66]于建军,任晓红,夏林等.“金攀西”优质烟开发区烤烟中性致香物质分析[J].中国烟草科学,2005,(4)：11-13
[67]丁根胜.福建省南平烟区烤烟品质特色分析[D].青岛：中国农业科学院烟草研究所,2009
[68]王欣,毕庆文,许自成等.恩施主产烟区烤烟质量综合评价[J].湖北农业科学,2007,46(5)：791-794
[69]于建军,董高峰,马海燕等.河南洛宁烟区生态因素与烟叶质量特点分析[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2009,8(4)：81-86
[70]焦敬华,毕庆文,许自成等.湖北宣恩烟区气候因素和烤烟质量特点分析[J].中国农学通报2007,23(8)：89-93
[71]王晖,邢小军,许自成等.凉山烟区主要气候因素与烤烟质量特点分析[J].中国农业气象,2007,28(4)：420-425
[72]文大荣,邓建华,逢涛等.云南省各州市烤烟外观质量差异分析[J].湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2009,35(10)：5-7
[73]邓小华,陈冬林,周冀衡等.湖南烤烟物理性状比较及聚类评价[J].中国烟草科学,2009,30(3)：63-68
[74]邓小华.湖南烤烟区域特征及质量评价指标间关系研究[D].长沙：湖南农业大学,2007
[75]黎妍妍,黄元炯,许自成等.河南烟区烟叶质量可用性的综合评价[J].安徽农业科学,2006,34(9)：1903-1904
[76]李建伟,郑少清,唐远驹等.不同产区烤烟的生物量和主要品质特性[J].贵州农业科学,2009,37(6)：54-57
[77]黄新杰,李章海,王能如等.中国主要烟区烟叶烟碱含量差异分析[J].湖北农业科学,2006,(5)：33-36
[78]任竹,张刚领,张方现等.贵州不同生态烟区烤烟质量状况分析[J].贵州农业科学,2009,37(10)：51-54
[79]李继新,潘文杰,田野等.贵州典型生态区烟叶质量特点分析[J].中国烟草科学,2009,30(1)：62-67
[80]廉芸芸.我国部分典型烤烟产区烟叶品质特色分析[D].北京：国农业科学院,2008
[81]王欣.湖北烟区烤烟质量综合评价及与国内外优质烤烟的差异分析[D].郑州：河南农业大学,2008
[82]肖守斌,邓小华.湖南烟叶质体色素含量的区域特征研究[J].安徽农业科学,2009,37(9)：4137-4139
[83]于建军,董高峰,毕庆文等.四川会理烟区生态因素与烟叶质量特点分析[J].四川农业大学学报,2009,27(1)：83-88
[84]韩忠明,李章海,黄刚等.我国主要烟区烤烟氯含量特征比较研究[J].贵州农业科学,2008,36(1)：106-107
[85]王瑞新.烟草化学[M].北京：农业出版社,2003.
[86]李强,周冀衡,张一杨等.中国主要烟区烤烟氯含量区域特征研究[J].中国土壤与肥料,2010,(2)：49-54
[87]李丹丹.四川烤烟钾、氯含量状况及与其他品质指标的关系[D].郑州：河南农业大学,2008.
[88]许自成,张婷,卢秀萍等.打顶后施用生长素和钾肥对烤烟根系性状及品质的影响[J].中国烟草学报,2008,(14)：26-30
[89]陈剑秋,解玉洪,陈宏坤等.包膜控释肥对烤烟烟叶钾含量的影响[J].中国烟草学报2008,(3)：40-45
[90]苏贤坤,张晓海,汪自强等.烤烟钾素营养特性的基因型差异研究[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2005,11(4)：536-540
[91]邓小华,周冀衡,周清明等.湖南烟区中部烤烟总糖含量状况及与评吸质量的关系[J].中国烟草学报,2009,15(5)：43-47
[92]冉法芬,许自成,李东亮等.我国主产烟区烤烟钾、氯、钾氯比与评吸质量的关系分析[J].西南农业学报,2010,4(23)：1147-1150
[2]左天觉,朱尊权.烟草的生产、生理和生物化学[M].上海：远东出版社,1993
[3]朱尊权.烟叶的可用性与卷烟的安全性[J].烟草科技,2000,(8)：3-6
[4]朱尊权.重点品牌的原料保障-论政策及农、商、工交接收购方式的创新[J].烟草科技,2007,(11)：5-7
[5]Tso,T.C. Tobacco as potential food and smoking material. Beitr.zur Tabakforsh,1977,9, (2):63-66
[6]韩锦峰,林木森,王瑞新.优质烤烟规范化栽培技术[M].郑州：河南科学技术出版社,1990
[7]中国农科院青州烟草研究所.中国烟草栽培学[M].上海：上海科学技术出版社,2005.
[8]林彩丽,杨铁钊.不同基因型烟草生长过程中主要化学成分的变化[J].烟草科技,2003,(1)：30-34.
[9]刘百战等.不同部位、度及颜色的云南烤烟中某些中性香味成分的分析研究[J].中国烟草报,1993,(3)：46-53
[10]梁洪波,李念胜等.烤烟烟叶颜色与内在品质的关系[J].中国烟草科学,2002,(1)：9-11
[11]王允白,王宝华,郭承芳等.影响烤烟评吸质量的主要化学成分研究[J].中国农业科学,1998,31(1)：89-91
[12]李东亮,许自成,陈景云等.烤烟主要物理性状与化学成分的典型相关分析[J].河南农业大学学报,2007,41(5)：492-497
[13]梁洪波,李念胜等.烤烟烟叶颜色与内在品质的关系[J].中国烟草科学,2002,(1)：9-11
[14]周冀衡,朱小平,王彦亭等.烟草生理与生物化学[M].合肥：中国科学技术大学出版社,1996.
[15]Moseley,J.M. The relationship of maturity of the leaf at harvest and certain properties of the cured leaf of flue-cured tobacco[J].Tobacco Science,1963,(7):67-75.
[16]Walker,E. K..Some chemical characteristics of the cured leaves of flued-cured tobacco relative to time of harvest, stalk position and chlorophyll content of the green leaves [J].Tobacco Science.1968, (12):58-65.
[17]赵立红.云南省主产烟区烟叶化学成分的部位特征[J].中国农学通报,2007,24(8)：241-246
[18]中国农科院青州烟草研究所.中国烟草栽培学[M].上海：科学技术出版社,2005：125-128
[19]杨辉,张庆明,杨超等.兴烟1号烟叶外观品质与内在评吸质量的关系[J].贵州农业科学,2009,37(11)：60-62
[20]闫克玉,赵献章.烟叶分级[M].北京：中国农业出版社,2003
[21]赵献章.烟叶分级[M].北京：中国科学技术出版社,1997
[22]周冀衡,朱小平,王彦亭等.烟草生理与生物化学[M].合肥：中国科学技术大学出版社,1996
[23]R.F.Severson;A.W.Johnson;D.M.Jackson. Cuticular constituents of tobacco:factors fectin g their roduction and their role in insect and disease resistance and smoke quality.Rec. AdV.Tob.Sci.1985(11):105-174
[24]Coussirat.J.C;P.Schlitz;W.W.Reid;Y.Bouteraou.Diterpenes in nicotiana tobacum Genetic vontrol of the production of(z)-abienol and a and pcembratriene diols. Ann.du Tabac.SEITA 1984(2):123-130
[25]Gwynn,G.R;R.F.Severson;D.M.Jackson;M.G.StepHenson.Inheritance of sucrose esters containing β-methyl-valeric acid in tobacco.Tob.Sci.1985(29):79-81
[26]Nielson, M.T; G.A.Jones.G.B.Collins. Inheritance pattern for secreting and nonsecretiog glandular trichomes in tobacco.crop Sci.1982(22):1051-1053
[27]刘国顺,汪耀富,符云鹏等.建立“名、优、特”烟叶产区提高烟叶品质和可用性[J].烟草科技,2001,(1)：28-32.
[28]李丹丹,许自成,邢小军等.四川烟区烤烟主要化学成分的变异分析[J].西南农业学报,2008.21(5)：1270-1274
[29]许自成,刘春奎,毕庆文等.中国主产烟区烤烟硫含量的分布特点及与其他化学成分的相关分析[J].郑州轻工业学院学报(自然科学版),2008.23(10)：1-7
[30]肖炳光,朱军,卢秀萍等.烤烟几种主要化学成分的遗传分析[J].作物学报,2005,31(12)：1557-1561
[31]朴世领,金东锡,赵亨哲等.不同品种及施肥量对晒红烟化学成分的影响[J].湖南 农业大学学报(自然科学版),2005,31(3)285-288
[32]汪耀富,高华军,刘国顺等.不同基因型烤烟叶片致香物质含量的对比分析[J].中国农学通报,2005,21(5)：117-120
[33]赵铭钦,赵辉,王文基等.不同基因型烤烟化学成分和致香物质问的相关和通径分析[J]中国烟草科学,2009,30(3)：7-12
[34]赵铭钦,于建春,程玉渊等.烤烟烟叶成熟度与香气质量的关系[J].中国农业大学学报,2005,10(3)：10-14
[35]王树声,孙福山,李雪震等.烟叶香气品质的研究概况及提高我国烟叶香气的技术探讨[A]；跨世纪烟草农业展望和持续发展战略研讨会论文集[C].北京：中国商业出版社,1999,367-373.
[36]韦凤杰,刘国顺,杨永锋等.烤烟成熟过程中类胡萝卜素变化与其降解致香物质关系[J].中国农业科学,2005,38(9)：1882-1889.
[37]赵铭钦,陈秋会,陈红华等.中外烤烟烟叶中挥发性香气物质的对比分析[J].华中农业大学学报,2007,26(6)：875-879
[38]汪耀富,高华军,刘国顺等.氮、磷、钾肥配施对烤烟化学成分和致香物质含量的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2006,12(1)：76-83
[39]史宏志,邸慧慧,赵晓丹等.豫中烤烟烟碱和总氮含量与中性香气成分含量的关系[J].作物学报,2009,35(7)：1299-1303
[40]Wahlberg,I.K;Karlsson,K;Johnson,W.H. Effects of flue-curing and ageing on thevolmile, neutral and acidic constituents of Virginia tobacco. Phytochemistry,1977,16:120-121
[41]史宏志,刘国顺.烟草香味学[M].北京：中国农业出版社,1998
[42]周冀衡,杨虹琦,林桂华等.不同烤烟产区烟叶中主要挥发性香气物质的研究[J].湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2004,30(1)：20-23.
[43]左天觉著；朱尊权译.烟草的生产、生理和生物化学[M].上海：远东出版社,1993.
[44]阎克玉,王海燕,李兴波等.烤烟国家标准(40级)河南烟叶叶片厚度、叶质重及叶片密度研究[J].郑州轻工业学院学报,1999,14(2)：45-50.
[45]刘国顺.国内外烟叶质量差距分析和提高烟叶质量技术途径探讨[J].中国烟草学报,2008,(z1)：54-58
[46]王玉军,谢胜利,邢淑华等.烤烟叶片厚度与主要化学组成相关性研究[J].中国烟草科学,1997,12(1)：11-14.
[47]张永安.提高上部烟叶可用性的化控技术研究[D].湖南农业大学硕士学位论文,2004.
[48]阎克玉,李兴波,赵学亮等.河南烤烟理化指标间的相关性研究.郑州轻工业学院学报(自然科学版)[J].2000,15(3)：20-24.
[49]林平,陈良元,罗登山等.叶丝在线膨胀工艺参数与填充能力的关系研究[J].烟草科技,1998,(6)：5-6.
[50]刘丽,张晓兵,许自成等.烤烟拉力与主要化学成分的关系研究[J].郑州轻工业学院学报(自然科学版),2007,22(4)：1-3.
[51]徐杰,闫克玉,帅红梅等.河南烤烟(40级)酚类物质含量及规律性研究[J].烟草科技,1999,(1)：23-24.
[52]于建军,庞天河,刘国顺等.烤烟香气质与化学成分的相关和通径分析[J].中国农学通报,2006,22(1)：71-73.
[53]薛超群,尹启生,王信民等.烤烟烟叶香气质量与其常规化学成分的相关性[J].烟草科技,2003(9)：27-30.
[54]谭仲夏,秦西云.烟叶主要化学指标与其感官质量的灰色关联分析[J].广西民族大学学报(自然科学版),2008,14(4)：67-72
[55]许自成,郑聪,李丹丹等.烤烟钾含量与主要挥发性香气物质及感官质量的关系分析[J].河南农业大学报,2009,43(4)：354-358
[56]张槐苓.烟草分析与检验[M].郑州：河南科学技术出版社,1994：71-92.
[57]Chaplin.J.E & Miner.CL. Production factors affecting chemical components of tobacco leaf. Rec.Adv.Tob.Sci.1980.
[58]Mulchi,C.L.Chloride effects on agronomic and physical properties of Maryand tobacco. Tob.Sci.1982,26:113-116.
[59]胡国松,郑伟,王震东等.烤烟营养原理[M].北京：科学出版社,2000.
[60]WeeksW.W. Differences in aroma,chemistry, solubilities,and smoking quality of cure flue-cured tobaccos with aglandular and glandular trichomes[J]. Agric.FooChem, 1992,40:1911-1917.
[61]于建军,庞天河,任晓红等.烤烟中性致香物质与评吸结果关系研究[J].河南农业大学学报,2006,40(4)：346-349
[62]周恒,邵惠芳,许自成等.不同醇化阶段复烤片烟化学成分与感官质量的关系[J].2009,12(4)：433-439
[63]孙立娟,李虎林,金哲等.不同成熟度烤烟外观特征及化学成分的变化[J].湖北农业科学,2008,47(3)：318-320
[64]厉福强,张长云,张长华等.贵州湄潭烤烟外观质量因素分析[J].贵州农业科学,2009,37(1)：54-57
[65]黄平俊,欧阳花,易建华等.浏阳烟区不同年份烤烟主要化学成分的变异分析[J].作物杂志,2008(6)：30-32
[66]于建军,任晓红,夏林等.“金攀西”优质烟开发区烤烟中性致香物质分析[J].中国烟草科学,2005,(4)：11-13
[67]丁根胜.福建省南平烟区烤烟品质特色分析[D].青岛：中国农业科学院烟草研究所,2009
[68]王欣,毕庆文,许自成等.恩施主产烟区烤烟质量综合评价[J].湖北农业科学,2007,46(5)：791-794
[69]于建军,董高峰,马海燕等.河南洛宁烟区生态因素与烟叶质量特点分析[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2009,8(4)：81-86
[70]焦敬华,毕庆文,许自成等.湖北宣恩烟区气候因素和烤烟质量特点分析[J].中国农学通报2007,23(8)：89-93
[71]王晖,邢小军,许自成等.凉山烟区主要气候因素与烤烟质量特点分析[J].中国农业气象,2007,28(4)：420-425
[72]文大荣,邓建华,逢涛等.云南省各州市烤烟外观质量差异分析[J].湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2009,35(10)：5-7
[73]邓小华,陈冬林,周冀衡等.湖南烤烟物理性状比较及聚类评价[J].中国烟草科学,2009,30(3)：63-68
[74]邓小华.湖南烤烟区域特征及质量评价指标间关系研究[D].长沙：湖南农业大学,2007
[75]黎妍妍,黄元炯,许自成等.河南烟区烟叶质量可用性的综合评价[J].安徽农业科学,2006,34(9)：1903-1904
[76]李建伟,郑少清,唐远驹等.不同产区烤烟的生物量和主要品质特性[J].贵州农业科学,2009,37(6)：54-57
[77]黄新杰,李章海,王能如等.中国主要烟区烟叶烟碱含量差异分析[J].湖北农业科学,2006,(5)：33-36
[78]任竹,张刚领,张方现等.贵州不同生态烟区烤烟质量状况分析[J].贵州农业科学,2009,37(10)：51-54
[79]李继新,潘文杰,田野等.贵州典型生态区烟叶质量特点分析[J].中国烟草科学,2009,30(1)：62-67
[80]廉芸芸.我国部分典型烤烟产区烟叶品质特色分析[D].北京：国农业科学院,2008
[81]王欣.湖北烟区烤烟质量综合评价及与国内外优质烤烟的差异分析[D].郑州：河南农业大学,2008
[82]肖守斌,邓小华.湖南烟叶质体色素含量的区域特征研究[J].安徽农业科学,2009,37(9)：4137-4139
[83]于建军,董高峰,毕庆文等.四川会理烟区生态因素与烟叶质量特点分析[J].四川农业大学学报,2009,27(1)：83-88
[84]韩忠明,李章海,黄刚等.我国主要烟区烤烟氯含量特征比较研究[J].贵州农业科学,2008,36(1)：106-107
[85]王瑞新.烟草化学[M].北京：农业出版社,2003.
[86]李强,周冀衡,张一杨等.中国主要烟区烤烟氯含量区域特征研究[J].中国土壤与肥料,2010,(2)：49-54
[87]李丹丹.四川烤烟钾、氯含量状况及与其他品质指标的关系[D].郑州：河南农业大学,2008.
[88]许自成,张婷,卢秀萍等.打顶后施用生长素和钾肥对烤烟根系性状及品质的影响[J].中国烟草学报,2008,(14)：26-30
[89]陈剑秋,解玉洪,陈宏坤等.包膜控释肥对烤烟烟叶钾含量的影响[J].中国烟草学报2008,(3)：40-45
[90]苏贤坤,张晓海,汪自强等.烤烟钾素营养特性的基因型差异研究[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2005,11(4)：536-540
[91]邓小华,周冀衡,周清明等.湖南烟区中部烤烟总糖含量状况及与评吸质量的关系[J].中国烟草学报,2009,15(5)：43-47
[92]冉法芬,许自成,李东亮等.我国主产烟区烤烟钾、氯、钾氯比与评吸质量的关系分析[J].西南农业学报,2010,4(23)：1147-1150