中国农业科学 ›› 2019, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (12): 2128-2139.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2019.12.010

• 园艺 • 上一篇    下一篇

越橘品质指标评价

张佳,聂继云(),张惠,李静,李也   

  1. 中国农业科学院果树研究所/农业农村部果品质量安全风险评估实验室(兴城)/农业农村部果品及苗木质量监督检验测试中心(兴城),辽宁兴城 125100
  • 收稿日期:2019-01-29 接受日期:2019-03-30 出版日期:2019-06-16 发布日期:2019-06-22
  • 通讯作者: 聂继云
  • 作者简介:张佳,E-mail: zhangjia208@126.com。
  • 基金资助:
    中国农业科学院科技创新工程(CAAS-ASTIP-2018-RIP-07)

Evaluation Indexes for Blueberry Quality

ZHANG Jia,NIE JiYun(),ZHANG Hui,LI Jing,LI Ye   

  1. Institute of Pomology, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Laboratory of Quality and Safety Risk Assessment for Fruit (Xingcheng), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs/Supervision and Test Center of Fruit and Nursery Stock Quality (Xingcheng), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Xingcheng 125100, Liaoning
  • Received:2019-01-29 Accepted:2019-03-30 Online:2019-06-16 Published:2019-06-22
  • Contact: JiYun NIE

摘要:

【目的】 探讨越橘品质指标间的相互关系,构建和完善越橘品质性状的综合评价体系,为合理评价越橘品质提供理论参考。【方法】 以92份越橘果实为材料,测定单果重、果形指数、果实硬度、维生素C含量、可溶性固形物含量、可滴定酸含量、固酸比7项品质指标,运用相关分析揭示指标间的相互关系,运用正态分布理论进行品质指标概率分级,利用因子分析确定越橘品质评价指标,运用层次分析确立评价指标的权重并建立指标评分标准。【结果】 越橘品质指标间离散程度差异很大,其变异系数分别为67.12%(固酸比)、45.46%(可滴定酸含量)、35.28%(单果重)、23.48%(维生素C含量)、18.23%(可溶性固形物含量)、18.05%(果实硬度)和6.05%(果形指数)。可滴定酸含量和维生素C含量均服从正态分布,概率值P均大于0.05,果形指数、果实硬度和可溶性固形物含量去掉个别极端值后,也服从正态分布,单果重的概率值P为0.0494,接近0.05,视为符合正态分布,固酸比呈偏态分布。可滴定酸含量和固酸比之间呈极显著的负相关,相关系数为-0.81742,二者间存在极显著的幂函数变化趋势,决定系数R 2为0.9005。筛选出4项越橘品质代表性指标,包括可溶性固形物含量(甜味指标)、可滴定酸含量(酸味指标)、维生素C含量(营养指标)和果实硬度(质地指标),4项代表性指标划分为5个等级,即极低、低、中、高和极高。建立4项代表性指标评分标准,将92份越橘果实划分为3个等级,即优等、中等和差等。 【结论】 越橘品质代表性指标包括可溶性固形物含量、可滴定酸含量、维生素C含量和果实硬度,建立的4项品质指标评分标准可用于越橘品质的科学评价与分类。

关键词: 越橘, 品质评价, 概率分级, 指标评分标准

Abstract:

【Objective】 The aim of this study was to explore the relationship among the indexes of blueberry quality and to establish their scientific grading standards, so as to provide a theoretical reference for reasonable evaluation of blueberry quality.【Method】Seven indexes (fruit weight, fruit firmness, titratable acidity, total soluble solid, total soluble solid/titratable acidity, fruit shape and vitamin C) of samples were determined, and the relationship among indexes were probed with correlation and regression analysis. Indexes were graded by probability grading, and typical indexes were identified by principal component analysis and systematic cluster analysis. The weight of indicator scores was identified by analytic hierarchy process. 【Result】 The dispersion degree varied greatly among blueberry quality indexes with the variable coefficient of 67.12% (total soluble solid/titratable), 45.46% (titratable acidity), 35.28% (fruit weight), 23.48% (vitamin C), 18.23% (total soluble solid), 18.05% (fruit firmness), and 6.05% (fruit shape). Both titratable acidity and vitamin C distributed normally, with probability values above 0.05. The distribution of fruit weight could be considered as normal with the probability value of 0.0494 (close to 0.05). If some extreme values were removed, other three indexes (fruit shape, fruit firmness, and total soluble solid) also distributed normally. Titratable acidity had a significant negative correlation with total soluble solid/titratable acidity, with correlation coefficient of -0.81742. Total soluble solid/titratable acidity had a significant power function concerning titratable acidity, and the coefficient of determination was 0.9005. From the evaluated seven indexes, four indexes (titratable acidity, total soluble solid, vitamin C and fruit firmness) were screened as evaluation indexes of blueberry quality, which represented sour index, sweet index, nutritional index and texture index respectively. These four indexes could be divided into 5 grades (lower, low, medium, high, and higher) with normal distribution, and the scoring standards of them were also established. By using these four selected indexes, blueberries from different regions were divided into three groups, including superior, medium and inferior. 【Conclusion】Blueberry quality could be evaluated by 4 indexes, including total soluble solid, titratable acidity, vitamin C and fruit firmness. The established scoring standards of four indexes could be effective in evaluation and classification of blueberry quality.

Key words: blueberry, quality evaluation, probability grading, indicator scoring standard