攀西地区烟叶质量分区研究
|
摘要
为探索科学、准确、全面地评价烟叶质量,并为卷烟工业企业合理选用烟叶原料提供理论依据,本文以攀西产烟区2009年B2F、C3F、X2F 3个等级共161份样品为供试材料,分析了烤烟外观质量、化学成分和感官质量的状况:并从不同部位、不同地点和不同品种三方面对攀西地区的烟叶进行了差异性分析,分别对攀西地区烟叶的外观质量、化学成分和感官质量进行聚类分析,并对烟叶样品进行综合聚类分析,将攀西地区烟叶分别分区。
1攀西地区烟叶质量综合评价
攀西地区烟叶成熟度较高,油份好,叶片结构为疏松或尚疏松,叶色为橘黄色或柠檬黄,外观质量总体评价较好,部分烤烟的身份和色度比较接近津巴布韦优质烟叶,但其他几项指标与津巴布韦烟叶相比还有一定的差距。
攀西地区烤烟样品主要化学成分中的总糖、还原糖含量和糖碱比较高,烟碱、氯、钾氯比、总氮含量和氮碱比基本在适宜范围内,且比较接近津巴布韦优质烟叶,特别是凉山烟区下部叶的烟碱含量(1.74%)甚至优于津巴布韦。氯、钾含量均低于津巴布韦烟叶的含量。攀西地区烟叶样品整体化学成分含量适宜,但与津巴布韦烟叶相比尚有差距。
攀西地区烤烟的香气量较充足,香气质较好但烟叶的香型风格不是很明显。三个部位得分的变异系数均较小,且大部分在5%之内,说明攀西地区不同取样点间烟叶样品的感官质量差异较小,基本一致。与津巴布韦烟叶相比,攀西地区烤烟部分样品的香气质、香气量和刺激性得分接近于津巴布韦烤烟;余味和杂气与津巴布韦烤烟相比差距较大,但烤烟的灰色较津巴布韦烤烟稍差。整体上攀西地区烟叶已接近津巴布韦烟叶的质量水平,尤其以中部叶最为接近。
2攀西地区烟叶质量差异性分析
攀西地区不同部位烟叶的外观质量表现上除了成熟度和色度差异不显著之外,其他指标都表现为差异显著。攀西地区不同品种间外观质量均为显著差异。攀西地区不同部位间烟叶的化学成分除了氯含量的差异不显著外,其他均为差异显著,尤其是总碱、总氮、糖碱比、钾氯比和氮碱比相互之间差异尤为显著。攀西地区不同品种间的化学成分含量除了总碱、糖碱比、钾和氮碱比之间差异显著外,其他化学成分指标显示为差异不显著。攀西地区不同部位之间的感官质量得分差异显著。攀西地区不同品种间感官质量得分大部分差异显著,部分差异不显著,而且在香气量、余味和刺激性方面,云烟85与红大和云烟87的得分均不显著。
3攀西地区烟叶质量相似性分析
对2009年攀西地区烟叶样品从外观质量、化学成分和感官评吸得分及综合质量得分结果运用DPS(Data Processing System)统计软件对检测数据进行聚类分析[78]。结果显示:其中有固定的几个县点在外观质量、化学成分和感官得分的相似性分析中,均出现在同一组,归纳如下:
三次聚类同时出现在第一区为:凉山州布拖县(云烟85 B2F)凉山州布拖县(云烟85 C3F),凉山州布拖县(云烟85 X2F),凉山州德昌县(云烟85 B2F) ,凉山州德昌县(云烟85 C3F),凉山州德昌县(云烟85 X2F),凉山州甘洛县(红大B2F) ,凉山州甘洛县(红大C2F) ,凉山州甘洛县(红大X2F),凉山州会东县(云烟85 B2F),凉山州会东县(云烟85 C3F),凉山州会东县(云烟85 X2F) ,凉山州会理(云烟85 B2F),凉山州会理县(云烟85 X2F),凉山州美姑县(云烟85 X2F)。
三次聚类同时出现在第二区的为:凉山州冕宁县(云烟87 C3F),凉山州宁南县(云烟85 X3F),凉山州普格县云烟85 X3F),凉山州西昌市(云烟87 C2F),凉山州西昌市(云烟87X2F),凉山州喜德县(云烟85 X2F)。
三次聚类同时出现在第二区的为:凉山州盐源县(云烟85 B2F),凉山州昭觉县(云85B2F),凉山州昭觉县(云烟85X2F),攀枝花米易县(云烟87 B2F),攀枝花米易县(云烟87 C3F) ,攀枝花米易县(云烟87X2F ),攀枝花仁和区(云烟85 B2F),攀枝花仁和区(云烟85 C3F) ,攀枝花仁和区(云烟85 X2F) ,攀枝花市盐边县(云烟87 B2F),攀枝花市盐边县(云烟87C3F),攀枝花市盐边县(云烟87 X2F)
通过对攀西地区2009年烟叶样品上、中、下三部位烟叶的外观质量、化学成分和感官评吸得分的相似性分析可以将攀西烟叶从外观质量、化学成分和感官评吸得分三层次上各分为三个区,具体形成他们分在同一个区的内在原因,还需通过对属于一类区的烟叶进行进一步深入分析。
In this article, in order to evaluate tobacco quality in a scientific, accurate and complete way and provide a theory basis for the cigarette industrial enterprise to selected tobacco material reasonably,the state of appearance quality,chemical composition and sensory quality were analyzed,then otherness analysis of tobacco in Pan-xi region was taken from different part,locale and varieties,the quantitative relation of appearance quality,chemical composition and sensory quality was discussed by methods of principal component analysis and Cluster analysis. Evaluation system of tobacco quality was established focusing on the analysis of quality characteristics of flue-cured tobacco with different aromas. The principal conclusions as follows:
1. The comprehensive evaluation of tobacco quality in Panxi tobacco-growing areas
The tobacco leaves in Panxi tobacco-growing areas had good overall evaluation of high appearance quality with good maturity, plenty oil, loosest or looser leaf structure, orange or lemmon color, Part body and chroma of the appearance quality of tobacco leaves was closer to Zimbabwe, but for the other indexes, there was still a gap between Panxi and Zimbabwe tobacco-growing areas.
The contents of total sugar, reducing sugar and the ratio of total sugar to nicotine of flue-cured tobacco in Panxi were higher. The contents of nicotine, chlorine, K/CL, total nitrogen and the ratio of total nitrogen to nicotine were closer to Zimbabwe, and were basically in suitable ranges. Especially, the nicotine content (1.74%) of lower leaves in Liangshan was superior to Zimbabwe. The content of chlorine and potassium was lower than Zimbabwe. The whole content of chemical composition for tobacco leaves was suitable, but compared with Zimbabwe, there still has a gap.
The flue-cured tobacco leaves in Panxi was with nicer flavor and rich aroma, but the aromas types was not obvious. The variation coefficient of smoking score in different stalk positions was lower and less than 5%, so the sensory quality of flue-cured tobacco leaves in different sampling spots was similar. The score of aroma quality, aroma volume, pungent of part tobacco samples in Panxi was closer to Zimbabwe, but there had a marked difference on taste, and offensive odor, and the ash was worth than Zimbabwe. Overall the tobacco quality in Panxiarea was already close to Zimbabwe especially for cutters.
2. Difference analysis of PanXi tobacco quality
Appearant quality of PanXi tobacoo were significant different by stalk position except in maturity and color. Appearant quality between variety were significant different.Chemical compositions were significant different between stalk positon except in chlorine concentration, especially in total alkaloid, total nitrogen, total sugar to alkaloid ratio,potassium to chlorine ratio and nitrogen to alkaloid ratio were significant different. Chemical composition between variety were significant different in total alkaloid, total sugar to alkaloid ratio, chlorine, nitrogen to alkaloid ratio, other chemical composition were not significant with each other. Smoking score between stalk position of PanXi tobacco were significant different. Most of smoking score were significant different, partial smoking score were not significant different, in aroma quantiry, taste and irritation between YunYan85 and YunYan87 were not significant different..
3. similarity analysis of Panxi tobacco quality
Apparent quality, chemical composition and smoking quality of tobacco samples in 2009 of PanXi area were analyzed by DPS(Data Processing System) analyze software to find the cluster trend of samples78. The results shows that:in the similarity analysis of apparent quality, chemical composition and smoking quality three countys are always in the same group.
Through three cluster analysis the county in the first group is :BuTuo county(YunYan85,B2F),BuTuocounty(YunYan85,X2F),DeChangcounty(YunYan85,B2F),DeChangcounty(YunYan85,C3F),DeChangcounty(YunYan85,X2F),GanLuocounty(HongDa,B2F),GanLuocounty(HongDa,C2F),GanLuoconty(HongDa,X2F),HuiDongcounty(YunYan85,B2F),HuiDongcounty(YunYan85,C3F),HuiDongcounty(YunYan85,X2F),HuiLicounty(YunYan85,B2F),HuiLicounty(YunYan85,X2F),MeiGucounty(YunYan85,X2F).
Through three cluster analysis the county in the second group is:MianNingcounty(YunYan87,C3F),NingNancounty(YunYan85,X3F),PuGecounty(YunYan85,X3F),XiChangcounty(YunYan87,C2F),XiChangcounty(YunYan87, X2F),XiDe county(YunYan 85 X2F).
The places appeared three times in the second area of clustering were: Liangshan city Yanyuan county(yunyan85 B2F), liangshan city zhaojue county(yunyan85 B2F), liangshan city zhaojue county(yunyan85 X2F), Panzhihua city Miyi county(yunyan87 B2F), Panzhihua city Miyi county(yunyan87 C3F), Panzhihua city Miyi county(yunyan87 X2F), Panzhihua city Renhe district(yunyan85 B2F), Panzhihua city Renhe district(yunyan85 C3F), Panzhihua city Renhe district(yunyan85 X2F), Panzhihua city Yanbian county(yunyan87 B2F), Panzhihua city Yanbian county(yunyan87 C3F), Panzhihua city Yanbian county(yunyan87 X2F).
The similarity analysis of appearance quality, chemical composition and sensory quality of upper, middle, lower leaves of 2009 tobacco sample in Panxi district could divide three areas in appearance quality, chemical composition and sensory quality, the specific inner reason of division still needed further deep analysis. Totally speaking, most producing areas of Panxi district had a good appearance quality and sensory quality, chemical composition was coordinate, the comprehensive quality of tobacco leaves in Panxi district was good, and had a balanced development between years.
1攀西地区烟叶质量综合评价
攀西地区烟叶成熟度较高,油份好,叶片结构为疏松或尚疏松,叶色为橘黄色或柠檬黄,外观质量总体评价较好,部分烤烟的身份和色度比较接近津巴布韦优质烟叶,但其他几项指标与津巴布韦烟叶相比还有一定的差距。
攀西地区烤烟样品主要化学成分中的总糖、还原糖含量和糖碱比较高,烟碱、氯、钾氯比、总氮含量和氮碱比基本在适宜范围内,且比较接近津巴布韦优质烟叶,特别是凉山烟区下部叶的烟碱含量(1.74%)甚至优于津巴布韦。氯、钾含量均低于津巴布韦烟叶的含量。攀西地区烟叶样品整体化学成分含量适宜,但与津巴布韦烟叶相比尚有差距。
攀西地区烤烟的香气量较充足,香气质较好但烟叶的香型风格不是很明显。三个部位得分的变异系数均较小,且大部分在5%之内,说明攀西地区不同取样点间烟叶样品的感官质量差异较小,基本一致。与津巴布韦烟叶相比,攀西地区烤烟部分样品的香气质、香气量和刺激性得分接近于津巴布韦烤烟;余味和杂气与津巴布韦烤烟相比差距较大,但烤烟的灰色较津巴布韦烤烟稍差。整体上攀西地区烟叶已接近津巴布韦烟叶的质量水平,尤其以中部叶最为接近。
2攀西地区烟叶质量差异性分析
攀西地区不同部位烟叶的外观质量表现上除了成熟度和色度差异不显著之外,其他指标都表现为差异显著。攀西地区不同品种间外观质量均为显著差异。攀西地区不同部位间烟叶的化学成分除了氯含量的差异不显著外,其他均为差异显著,尤其是总碱、总氮、糖碱比、钾氯比和氮碱比相互之间差异尤为显著。攀西地区不同品种间的化学成分含量除了总碱、糖碱比、钾和氮碱比之间差异显著外,其他化学成分指标显示为差异不显著。攀西地区不同部位之间的感官质量得分差异显著。攀西地区不同品种间感官质量得分大部分差异显著,部分差异不显著,而且在香气量、余味和刺激性方面,云烟85与红大和云烟87的得分均不显著。
3攀西地区烟叶质量相似性分析
对2009年攀西地区烟叶样品从外观质量、化学成分和感官评吸得分及综合质量得分结果运用DPS(Data Processing System)统计软件对检测数据进行聚类分析[78]。结果显示:其中有固定的几个县点在外观质量、化学成分和感官得分的相似性分析中,均出现在同一组,归纳如下:
三次聚类同时出现在第一区为:凉山州布拖县(云烟85 B2F)凉山州布拖县(云烟85 C3F),凉山州布拖县(云烟85 X2F),凉山州德昌县(云烟85 B2F) ,凉山州德昌县(云烟85 C3F),凉山州德昌县(云烟85 X2F),凉山州甘洛县(红大B2F) ,凉山州甘洛县(红大C2F) ,凉山州甘洛县(红大X2F),凉山州会东县(云烟85 B2F),凉山州会东县(云烟85 C3F),凉山州会东县(云烟85 X2F) ,凉山州会理(云烟85 B2F),凉山州会理县(云烟85 X2F),凉山州美姑县(云烟85 X2F)。
三次聚类同时出现在第二区的为:凉山州冕宁县(云烟87 C3F),凉山州宁南县(云烟85 X3F),凉山州普格县云烟85 X3F),凉山州西昌市(云烟87 C2F),凉山州西昌市(云烟87X2F),凉山州喜德县(云烟85 X2F)。
三次聚类同时出现在第二区的为:凉山州盐源县(云烟85 B2F),凉山州昭觉县(云85B2F),凉山州昭觉县(云烟85X2F),攀枝花米易县(云烟87 B2F),攀枝花米易县(云烟87 C3F) ,攀枝花米易县(云烟87X2F ),攀枝花仁和区(云烟85 B2F),攀枝花仁和区(云烟85 C3F) ,攀枝花仁和区(云烟85 X2F) ,攀枝花市盐边县(云烟87 B2F),攀枝花市盐边县(云烟87C3F),攀枝花市盐边县(云烟87 X2F)
通过对攀西地区2009年烟叶样品上、中、下三部位烟叶的外观质量、化学成分和感官评吸得分的相似性分析可以将攀西烟叶从外观质量、化学成分和感官评吸得分三层次上各分为三个区,具体形成他们分在同一个区的内在原因,还需通过对属于一类区的烟叶进行进一步深入分析。
In this article, in order to evaluate tobacco quality in a scientific, accurate and complete way and provide a theory basis for the cigarette industrial enterprise to selected tobacco material reasonably,the state of appearance quality,chemical composition and sensory quality were analyzed,then otherness analysis of tobacco in Pan-xi region was taken from different part,locale and varieties,the quantitative relation of appearance quality,chemical composition and sensory quality was discussed by methods of principal component analysis and Cluster analysis. Evaluation system of tobacco quality was established focusing on the analysis of quality characteristics of flue-cured tobacco with different aromas. The principal conclusions as follows:
1. The comprehensive evaluation of tobacco quality in Panxi tobacco-growing areas
The tobacco leaves in Panxi tobacco-growing areas had good overall evaluation of high appearance quality with good maturity, plenty oil, loosest or looser leaf structure, orange or lemmon color, Part body and chroma of the appearance quality of tobacco leaves was closer to Zimbabwe, but for the other indexes, there was still a gap between Panxi and Zimbabwe tobacco-growing areas.
The contents of total sugar, reducing sugar and the ratio of total sugar to nicotine of flue-cured tobacco in Panxi were higher. The contents of nicotine, chlorine, K/CL, total nitrogen and the ratio of total nitrogen to nicotine were closer to Zimbabwe, and were basically in suitable ranges. Especially, the nicotine content (1.74%) of lower leaves in Liangshan was superior to Zimbabwe. The content of chlorine and potassium was lower than Zimbabwe. The whole content of chemical composition for tobacco leaves was suitable, but compared with Zimbabwe, there still has a gap.
The flue-cured tobacco leaves in Panxi was with nicer flavor and rich aroma, but the aromas types was not obvious. The variation coefficient of smoking score in different stalk positions was lower and less than 5%, so the sensory quality of flue-cured tobacco leaves in different sampling spots was similar. The score of aroma quality, aroma volume, pungent of part tobacco samples in Panxi was closer to Zimbabwe, but there had a marked difference on taste, and offensive odor, and the ash was worth than Zimbabwe. Overall the tobacco quality in Panxiarea was already close to Zimbabwe especially for cutters.
2. Difference analysis of PanXi tobacco quality
Appearant quality of PanXi tobacoo were significant different by stalk position except in maturity and color. Appearant quality between variety were significant different.Chemical compositions were significant different between stalk positon except in chlorine concentration, especially in total alkaloid, total nitrogen, total sugar to alkaloid ratio,potassium to chlorine ratio and nitrogen to alkaloid ratio were significant different. Chemical composition between variety were significant different in total alkaloid, total sugar to alkaloid ratio, chlorine, nitrogen to alkaloid ratio, other chemical composition were not significant with each other. Smoking score between stalk position of PanXi tobacco were significant different. Most of smoking score were significant different, partial smoking score were not significant different, in aroma quantiry, taste and irritation between YunYan85 and YunYan87 were not significant different..
3. similarity analysis of Panxi tobacco quality
Apparent quality, chemical composition and smoking quality of tobacco samples in 2009 of PanXi area were analyzed by DPS(Data Processing System) analyze software to find the cluster trend of samples78. The results shows that:in the similarity analysis of apparent quality, chemical composition and smoking quality three countys are always in the same group.
Through three cluster analysis the county in the first group is :BuTuo county(YunYan85,B2F),BuTuocounty(YunYan85,X2F),DeChangcounty(YunYan85,B2F),DeChangcounty(YunYan85,C3F),DeChangcounty(YunYan85,X2F),GanLuocounty(HongDa,B2F),GanLuocounty(HongDa,C2F),GanLuoconty(HongDa,X2F),HuiDongcounty(YunYan85,B2F),HuiDongcounty(YunYan85,C3F),HuiDongcounty(YunYan85,X2F),HuiLicounty(YunYan85,B2F),HuiLicounty(YunYan85,X2F),MeiGucounty(YunYan85,X2F).
Through three cluster analysis the county in the second group is:MianNingcounty(YunYan87,C3F),NingNancounty(YunYan85,X3F),PuGecounty(YunYan85,X3F),XiChangcounty(YunYan87,C2F),XiChangcounty(YunYan87, X2F),XiDe county(YunYan 85 X2F).
The places appeared three times in the second area of clustering were: Liangshan city Yanyuan county(yunyan85 B2F), liangshan city zhaojue county(yunyan85 B2F), liangshan city zhaojue county(yunyan85 X2F), Panzhihua city Miyi county(yunyan87 B2F), Panzhihua city Miyi county(yunyan87 C3F), Panzhihua city Miyi county(yunyan87 X2F), Panzhihua city Renhe district(yunyan85 B2F), Panzhihua city Renhe district(yunyan85 C3F), Panzhihua city Renhe district(yunyan85 X2F), Panzhihua city Yanbian county(yunyan87 B2F), Panzhihua city Yanbian county(yunyan87 C3F), Panzhihua city Yanbian county(yunyan87 X2F).
The similarity analysis of appearance quality, chemical composition and sensory quality of upper, middle, lower leaves of 2009 tobacco sample in Panxi district could divide three areas in appearance quality, chemical composition and sensory quality, the specific inner reason of division still needed further deep analysis. Totally speaking, most producing areas of Panxi district had a good appearance quality and sensory quality, chemical composition was coordinate, the comprehensive quality of tobacco leaves in Panxi district was good, and had a balanced development between years.
引文
[1]闫克玉,王光耀.我国烤烟质量分析评价研究进展[J].郑州轻工业学报(自然科学版),2007.(2):49-52.
[2]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.
[3]金思明,王培林。优质烤烟栽培与烘烤[M].合肥:安徽科学技术出版社,1992.
[4]于建军,李琳,庞天河,等.烟叶发酵研究进展[J].河南农业大学学报2006,40(1):108-111.
[5]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.
[6]吴建峰,林业贵.土壤微生物在促进植物生长方面的作用[J].土壤,2001,(1):18-21.
[7]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,200年增刊:54-58.
[8]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.
[9]陆天胜,刘汉传,邵伏文,等.烤烟40级不同成熟度与内外观质量研究[J].安徽农业科学, 1994,22(3):256—258.
[10]宪杰,王信民,尹启生.成熟度与烟叶质量的量化关系研究[J].中国烟草学报,2005,11(4):42—46.
[11]高家合,秦西云,李金平,等.烤烟不同叶位叶片的化学成分变化规律研究[J] .中国农学通报,2005,2l(3):183-186,258.
[12]蔡宪杰,王信民,尹启生.烤烟外观质量指标量化分析初探[J].烟草科技,2004,(6):37-39,42.
[13]王卫康.《烤烟》国标中分级因素的概念及把握[J].烟草科技,2004,(5):44-48.
[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]赵献章.烟叶分级[M].北京:中国科学技术出版社,1997.
[16]宪杰,王信民,尹启生.成熟度与烟叶质量的量化关系研究[J].中国烟草学报,2005,11(4):42—46.
[17]闫克玉,赵献章.烟叶分级[M]中国农业出版社.2003.
[18]王卫康.《烤烟》国标中分级因素的概念及把握[J].烟草科技,2004,(5):44-48.
[19]左天觉著,朱尊权译.烟草的生产、生理和生物化学twrl.上海:远东出版社,1993.
[20]姜茱,谢胜利.烤烟叶片大小与烟叶化学成分的关系研究初报[J].中国烟草, 1991,(2):35—40.
[21]闫克玉,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].郑卅轻工业学院学报,1999,14(2):45-50.
[22]王玉军,谢胜利,姜茱,等.烤烟叶片厚度与主要化学组成相关性研究叨.中国烟草科学,1997,(1):3—6.
[23]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明.中国烟草科学,1997,(1):11-14.
[24]闫克玉,刘江豫,徐传贵.烤烟国家标准烟叶平衡含水率测定报告[J].烟草科技,1993,(2):16—19。
[25]杨素勤.饼肥用量对烤烟化学成分的影响[J].烟草科技,1996(3):36-38.
[26]孙逊.冀东高肥力土壤氮磷钾配合施用对晒烟产量质量及二者关系的影响[J].中国烟草,1994,(1):20-23.
[27]陆力光,杨正申.黄腐酸在旱地烤烟上的应用研究[J].中国烟草,1994,(4):12-20.
[28]邓云龙.烤烟K326超量施肥试验研究[J].烟草科技,1996,(4):38—40.
[29]闫克玉,李兴波,阎洪洋,等.烤烟(40级)烟叶焦油量与燃烧性的相关性研究[J].郑州轻工业学院学报,1998,13(1):5-10.
[30]李永忠,罗鹏涛.氯在烟草体内的生理代谢功能及其应用[J]。云南农业大学学报,1995,10(1):57-61.
[31]李东亮,许自成.烤烟钾素和氯素含量及其比值与物理性状的关系分析[J].江西农业大学学报,2007,29(3):341-346,
[32]张翔,范艺宽,黄元炯,等.烤烟吸收氯的主要来源及其在体内分布的研究[J].土壤肥料,2006,(2):62-63.
[33]韩锦峰,王瑞新,刘国顺,等.烟草栽培生理[M].北京:农业出版社,1986.
[34]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].中国烟草学报年增刊:54-58.
[35]左天觉著,朱尊权译.烟草的生产、生理和生物化学twrl.上海:远东出版社,1993.
[36]王欣,许自成,毕庆文,等.生态因素对烤烟还原糖、总糖含量影响之研究进展[J].中国农报,2007,23(8):225-228.
[37]杜咏梅,郭承芳,张怀宝,等.水溶性糖、烟碱、总氮含量与烤烟吃味品质的关系研究[J].中国烟草科学,2000,(1):7-10.
[38]杜咏梅,郭承芳,张怀宝,等.水溶性糖、烟碱、总氮含量与烤烟吃味品质的关系研究[J].中国烟草科学,2000,(1):11-13.
[39]宫长荣,王能如,汪耀富,等.烟叶烘烤原理[M].北京:科学出版社,1994.
[40]史宏志.不同氮量与氮源下烤烟淀粉酶和转化酶活性动态变化[J].中国烟草科学,1999,(3):5-8.
[41]顾也萍,程承士,冯学钢,等.钾肥对皖南红壤烟叶含钾量及烟碱含量的影响[J].安徽师范大学学报,1998,21(1):78-81.
[42]胡国松,王志彬,王凌,等.烤烟烟碱累积特点及部分营养元素对烟碱含量的影响[J].河北农业科学,1999,(1):10-14.
[43]裘宗海,黎文文,王文松.氮、钾对烤烟营养元素吸收规律及产质影响的研究[刀.土壤通报,1 990,20(2):65-70.
[44]袁宝生,张巨祥,孙闻海,等.生物钾肥对改良烟草品质提高烟草产量的效果[J].河北省科学院学报,1994,(2):33-43.
[45] Bryger,T.C.et a1.:plantphysiol[J].1954,29:526—532.
[46] Tohnson,C,M,etal.:plant and soil[J].1957,8:337-353.
[47]刘春奎,许自成,王晖,等.中国烤烟含氯农残总量状况及其控制措施探讨[J].中国农学通报,2007,23(1 1):126—129.
[48] T sai C R.The up take of chloride by flue·cured tobacco in Taiwan[J].Bullet in of Taiw an Tob.Inst.,1979,(10):39—461.
[49]张晓海,殷端,喻尚其,等.氯在烤烟中的分布研究[J].西南农业大学学报,1999,(8):328.332.
[50] Fujimori T,Kasuga R,Matsuashita H,et a1.Neutral aroma constituents in burley tobacco[J].Agr.Biol Chem.,1976,40(2):303-315.
[51] Schultz T H,Flath R A,Eggling S B,et a1.Isolation of volatile components from a model system[J]Agric.Food Chem.,1 977,25:446—449.
[52] HayatoH R.The quality estimation of different tobacco types examined by headspace vapor [D]England:Papers presented at the Joint Meeting of Smoke and Technology Groups of CORESTA,1998.
[53]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.
[54]李雪震,张希杰.烤烟烟叶色素与烟叶品质的关系[J].中国烟草,1988(2):10-13.
[55]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.
[56]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[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.
[57]姚益群.云南烟草香气研究[J].烟草科技:1988(4):20-23.
[58]周冀衡,王勇,邵岩,等.产烟国部分烟区烤烟质体色素及主要挥发性致香物质含量的比较[J]..湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2005,31(2):128-132
[59]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.
[60]冯丽婷,徐杰,闫克玉,等.河南烤烟(40级)酚类物质含量及规律性研究叨.烟草科技,1999,134(1):22—24.
[61]周金仙,白永富,张恒,等.云南烟草品种区域试验研究[J].云南农业大学学报,2004,19(1):78-85.
[62] Chaplin.J.E&Miner,CLS.Production factors affecting chemical components of tobacco Leaf[J].Ree.Adv.Tob.Sci.1980.
[63] Mulchi,C.L.Chloride effects on agronomic and physical properties ofMaryland tobacco[J].Tob.Sci.,1982,26(1):13—16.
[64]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.
[65]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.
[66]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[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.
[67]姚益群.云南烟草香气研究[J].烟草科技:1988(4):20-23.
[68]闫克玉,王建民,屈剑波,等.河南烤烟评吸质量与主要理化指标的相关分析[J].烟草科技,2001,(10):5-9.
[69]王瑞新.烟草化学[M].北京:农业出版社,2003.
[70]闫克玉,王建民,屈剑波,等.河南烤烟评吸质量与主要理化指标的相关分析[J].烟草科技,2001,(10):5-9.
[71]杜咏梅,郭承芳,张怀宝,等.水溶性糖、烟碱、总氮含量与烤烟吃味品质的关系研究[J].中国烟草科学,2000,(1):7-10.
[72]高家合,秦西云,谭仲夏,等.烟叶主要化学成分对评吸质量的影响[J].山地农业生物学报,2004,23(6):497-501.
[73]王欣,许自成,毕庆文,等.生态因素对烤烟还原糖、总糖含量影响之研究进展[J].中国农报,2007,23(8):225-228.
[74]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
[75]于建军,董高峰,毕庆文,等.四川会理烟区生态因素和烟叶质量特点分析[J].四川农业大学学报,2009,27(1):83-88. ,
[76]于建军等.卷烟烟气的形成及其理化性质[M].卷烟工艺学.北京:中国农业出版社,2003.
[77]王瑞新,韩富根.烟草化学品质分析法[M].郑州:河南科技出版社,1990:50-183.
[78]唐启明,冯明光.实用统计分析及其DPS数据处理系统[M].北京:科学出版社,1997.
[79]王瑞新.烟草化学[M].北京:农业出版社,2003.
[2]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.
[3]金思明,王培林。优质烤烟栽培与烘烤[M].合肥:安徽科学技术出版社,1992.
[4]于建军,李琳,庞天河,等.烟叶发酵研究进展[J].河南农业大学学报2006,40(1):108-111.
[5]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.
[6]吴建峰,林业贵.土壤微生物在促进植物生长方面的作用[J].土壤,2001,(1):18-21.
[7]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,200年增刊:54-58.
[8]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.
[9]陆天胜,刘汉传,邵伏文,等.烤烟40级不同成熟度与内外观质量研究[J].安徽农业科学, 1994,22(3):256—258.
[10]宪杰,王信民,尹启生.成熟度与烟叶质量的量化关系研究[J].中国烟草学报,2005,11(4):42—46.
[11]高家合,秦西云,李金平,等.烤烟不同叶位叶片的化学成分变化规律研究[J] .中国农学通报,2005,2l(3):183-186,258.
[12]蔡宪杰,王信民,尹启生.烤烟外观质量指标量化分析初探[J].烟草科技,2004,(6):37-39,42.
[13]王卫康.《烤烟》国标中分级因素的概念及把握[J].烟草科技,2004,(5):44-48.
[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]赵献章.烟叶分级[M].北京:中国科学技术出版社,1997.
[16]宪杰,王信民,尹启生.成熟度与烟叶质量的量化关系研究[J].中国烟草学报,2005,11(4):42—46.
[17]闫克玉,赵献章.烟叶分级[M]中国农业出版社.2003.
[18]王卫康.《烤烟》国标中分级因素的概念及把握[J].烟草科技,2004,(5):44-48.
[19]左天觉著,朱尊权译.烟草的生产、生理和生物化学twrl.上海:远东出版社,1993.
[20]姜茱,谢胜利.烤烟叶片大小与烟叶化学成分的关系研究初报[J].中国烟草, 1991,(2):35—40.
[21]闫克玉,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].郑卅轻工业学院学报,1999,14(2):45-50.
[22]王玉军,谢胜利,姜茱,等.烤烟叶片厚度与主要化学组成相关性研究叨.中国烟草科学,1997,(1):3—6.
[23]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明.中国烟草科学,1997,(1):11-14.
[24]闫克玉,刘江豫,徐传贵.烤烟国家标准烟叶平衡含水率测定报告[J].烟草科技,1993,(2):16—19。
[25]杨素勤.饼肥用量对烤烟化学成分的影响[J].烟草科技,1996(3):36-38.
[26]孙逊.冀东高肥力土壤氮磷钾配合施用对晒烟产量质量及二者关系的影响[J].中国烟草,1994,(1):20-23.
[27]陆力光,杨正申.黄腐酸在旱地烤烟上的应用研究[J].中国烟草,1994,(4):12-20.
[28]邓云龙.烤烟K326超量施肥试验研究[J].烟草科技,1996,(4):38—40.
[29]闫克玉,李兴波,阎洪洋,等.烤烟(40级)烟叶焦油量与燃烧性的相关性研究[J].郑州轻工业学院学报,1998,13(1):5-10.
[30]李永忠,罗鹏涛.氯在烟草体内的生理代谢功能及其应用[J]。云南农业大学学报,1995,10(1):57-61.
[31]李东亮,许自成.烤烟钾素和氯素含量及其比值与物理性状的关系分析[J].江西农业大学学报,2007,29(3):341-346,
[32]张翔,范艺宽,黄元炯,等.烤烟吸收氯的主要来源及其在体内分布的研究[J].土壤肥料,2006,(2):62-63.
[33]韩锦峰,王瑞新,刘国顺,等.烟草栽培生理[M].北京:农业出版社,1986.
[34]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].中国烟草学报年增刊:54-58.
[35]左天觉著,朱尊权译.烟草的生产、生理和生物化学twrl.上海:远东出版社,1993.
[36]王欣,许自成,毕庆文,等.生态因素对烤烟还原糖、总糖含量影响之研究进展[J].中国农报,2007,23(8):225-228.
[37]杜咏梅,郭承芳,张怀宝,等.水溶性糖、烟碱、总氮含量与烤烟吃味品质的关系研究[J].中国烟草科学,2000,(1):7-10.
[38]杜咏梅,郭承芳,张怀宝,等.水溶性糖、烟碱、总氮含量与烤烟吃味品质的关系研究[J].中国烟草科学,2000,(1):11-13.
[39]宫长荣,王能如,汪耀富,等.烟叶烘烤原理[M].北京:科学出版社,1994.
[40]史宏志.不同氮量与氮源下烤烟淀粉酶和转化酶活性动态变化[J].中国烟草科学,1999,(3):5-8.
[41]顾也萍,程承士,冯学钢,等.钾肥对皖南红壤烟叶含钾量及烟碱含量的影响[J].安徽师范大学学报,1998,21(1):78-81.
[42]胡国松,王志彬,王凌,等.烤烟烟碱累积特点及部分营养元素对烟碱含量的影响[J].河北农业科学,1999,(1):10-14.
[43]裘宗海,黎文文,王文松.氮、钾对烤烟营养元素吸收规律及产质影响的研究[刀.土壤通报,1 990,20(2):65-70.
[44]袁宝生,张巨祥,孙闻海,等.生物钾肥对改良烟草品质提高烟草产量的效果[J].河北省科学院学报,1994,(2):33-43.
[45] Bryger,T.C.et a1.:plantphysiol[J].1954,29:526—532.
[46] Tohnson,C,M,etal.:plant and soil[J].1957,8:337-353.
[47]刘春奎,许自成,王晖,等.中国烤烟含氯农残总量状况及其控制措施探讨[J].中国农学通报,2007,23(1 1):126—129.
[48] T sai C R.The up take of chloride by flue·cured tobacco in Taiwan[J].Bullet in of Taiw an Tob.Inst.,1979,(10):39—461.
[49]张晓海,殷端,喻尚其,等.氯在烤烟中的分布研究[J].西南农业大学学报,1999,(8):328.332.
[50] Fujimori T,Kasuga R,Matsuashita H,et a1.Neutral aroma constituents in burley tobacco[J].Agr.Biol Chem.,1976,40(2):303-315.
[51] Schultz T H,Flath R A,Eggling S B,et a1.Isolation of volatile components from a model system[J]Agric.Food Chem.,1 977,25:446—449.
[52] HayatoH R.The quality estimation of different tobacco types examined by headspace vapor [D]England:Papers presented at the Joint Meeting of Smoke and Technology Groups of CORESTA,1998.
[53]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.
[54]李雪震,张希杰.烤烟烟叶色素与烟叶品质的关系[J].中国烟草,1988(2):10-13.
[55]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.
[56]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[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.
[57]姚益群.云南烟草香气研究[J].烟草科技:1988(4):20-23.
[58]周冀衡,王勇,邵岩,等.产烟国部分烟区烤烟质体色素及主要挥发性致香物质含量的比较[J]..湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2005,31(2):128-132
[59]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.
[60]冯丽婷,徐杰,闫克玉,等.河南烤烟(40级)酚类物质含量及规律性研究叨.烟草科技,1999,134(1):22—24.
[61]周金仙,白永富,张恒,等.云南烟草品种区域试验研究[J].云南农业大学学报,2004,19(1):78-85.
[62] Chaplin.J.E&Miner,CLS.Production factors affecting chemical components of tobacco Leaf[J].Ree.Adv.Tob.Sci.1980.
[63] Mulchi,C.L.Chloride effects on agronomic and physical properties ofMaryland tobacco[J].Tob.Sci.,1982,26(1):13—16.
[64]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.
[65]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.
[66]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[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.
[67]姚益群.云南烟草香气研究[J].烟草科技:1988(4):20-23.
[68]闫克玉,王建民,屈剑波,等.河南烤烟评吸质量与主要理化指标的相关分析[J].烟草科技,2001,(10):5-9.
[69]王瑞新.烟草化学[M].北京:农业出版社,2003.
[70]闫克玉,王建民,屈剑波,等.河南烤烟评吸质量与主要理化指标的相关分析[J].烟草科技,2001,(10):5-9.
[71]杜咏梅,郭承芳,张怀宝,等.水溶性糖、烟碱、总氮含量与烤烟吃味品质的关系研究[J].中国烟草科学,2000,(1):7-10.
[72]高家合,秦西云,谭仲夏,等.烟叶主要化学成分对评吸质量的影响[J].山地农业生物学报,2004,23(6):497-501.
[73]王欣,许自成,毕庆文,等.生态因素对烤烟还原糖、总糖含量影响之研究进展[J].中国农报,2007,23(8):225-228.
[74]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
[75]于建军,董高峰,毕庆文,等.四川会理烟区生态因素和烟叶质量特点分析[J].四川农业大学学报,2009,27(1):83-88. ,
[76]于建军等.卷烟烟气的形成及其理化性质[M].卷烟工艺学.北京:中国农业出版社,2003.
[77]王瑞新,韩富根.烟草化学品质分析法[M].郑州:河南科技出版社,1990:50-183.
[78]唐启明,冯明光.实用统计分析及其DPS数据处理系统[M].北京:科学出版社,1997.
[79]王瑞新.烟草化学[M].北京:农业出版社,2003.