基于模糊建模解析不同产地沃柑果实感官品质差异

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2024.10.012

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】果实感官品质是决定果品市场竞争力最重要的因素，建立科学的柑橘果实综合感官品质评价方法，明确不同产地柑橘果实感官品质差异，探究消费者偏好性，筛选与柑橘感官属性密切相关的代谢产物，为柑橘育种、实际生产及市场销售提供理论支撑和数字化方法。【方法】以具有品质差异的9个产区沃柑果实为试验材料，首先组织评价员对样品各感官属性及权重进行评价，利用模糊数学得出不同感官属性的权重排名，并对不同产地样品的综合感官品质进行排序及分组；同时，检测常规理化指标，并通过气相色谱质谱联用仪（gas chromatography-mass spectrometry，GC-MS）和高效液相色谱（high performance liquid chromatography，HPLC）分析与果实风味相关的可溶性糖、有机酸、氨基酸、类黄酮等代谢产物；进而利用OPLS-DA分析不同组间样品的主要差异代谢物，并通过皮尔逊相关性分析将样品各感官属性与相关代谢物质数据进行关联；最终获得可反映沃柑风味品质的重要代谢标志物。【结果】沃柑感官属性权重排名为果肉甜度>果肉酸度>果肉化渣性>果实色泽>果实香气>果实外形；常规指标固酸比不适合用于沃柑果实样品内在品质优劣的精准分级。因此，基于综合感官品质差异，9个产地沃柑样品被划分为两组，高感官品质组沃柑样品综合得分均高于60分，低感官品质组综合得分均低于60分。OPLS-DA分析表明，3种主要差异代谢产物可在风味上显著区分高、低感官品质组沃柑样品，这些物质分别为L-谷氨酸、橙皮苷和L-缬氨酸。皮尔逊相关性分析表明，α-酮戊二酸、L-谷氨酸和橙皮苷含量与沃柑综合感官品质、甜度和酸度得分多呈显著负相关。【结论】模糊数学可用于沃柑果实综合品质评价，消费者对沃柑的果肉甜度和酸度更为关注，L-谷氨酸和橙皮苷对沃柑果实品质差异的形成具有重要作用。

关键词: 沃柑（Citrus reticulata Orah）, 感官品质, 代谢产物, 感官评价, 模糊逻辑模型

Abstract:

【Objective】 Fruit sensory quality is the most important factor in determining the competitive edge in the fruit market. The aim of this study was to establish a comprehensive sensory quality evaluation method for citrus fruits by analyzing Orah mandarin (Citrus reticulata Orah) fruits produced in nine different regions and showing quality differences. In addition, this study was aimed to identify sensory quality differences, consumer preference, and metabolites closely linked to citrus sensory attributes in Orah mandarin from different regions. This study could provide the theoretical support and digital method for citrus breeding, practical production and marketing. 【Method】 Firstly, evaluators assessed each sensory attribute and weight of fruit samples, and the fuzzy mathematics was used to derive the weight ranking of different sensory attributes. The samples were then ranked and grouped based on comprehensive sensory evaluation. Furthermore, the physical and chemical indexes were measured, and metabolites related to fruit flavor were analyzed by using GC-MS and HPLC, including soluble sugars, organic acids, amino acids, and flavonoids. OPLS-DA was used to analyze the main differential metabolites between samples from different groups. The relationship between sensory attributes and metabolites was determined by using Pearson correlation analysis. Finally, the important biomarkers reflecting the flavor quality of Orah mandarin were identifued. 【Result】 The sensory attribute weights of Orah mandarin were determined as pulp sweetness>pulp acidity>pulp mastication>fruit color>fruit aroma>fruit shape. Conventional solid-acid ratio was not suitable for accurate classification of the intrinsic quality of Orah mandarin samples. Therefore, based on comprehensive sensory quality, the nine Orah mandarin samples were divided into a high sensory quality group with a score larger than 60 and a low sensory quality group with a score smaller than 60. The OPLS-DA analysis revealed three key compounds (L-glutamic acid, hesperidin, and L-valine) distinguishing high and low sensory quality groups. Futhermore, the pearson correlation analysis indicated that the levels of α-ketoglutaric acid, L-glutamic acid and hesperidin were negatively correlated with sensory quality, sweetness and acidity. 【Conclusion】 Fuzzy mathematics was effectively used to evaluate the comprehensive quality of Orah mandarin. The results indicated that consumers were more concerned in pulp sweetness and acidity; L-glutamic acid and hesperidin might be trait components reflecting the flavor quality of Orah mandarin.

Key words: C. reticulata Orah, sensory quality, metabolites, sensory evaluation, fuzzy logic model

吴雅诺, 刘园, 孔佳涛, 胡哲辉, 陈明华, 吴俊琛, 张红艳, 蒋友武, 徐娟, 陈嘉景. 基于模糊建模解析不同产地沃柑果实感官品质差异[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(10): 2010-2022.

WU YaNuo, LIU Yuan, KONG JiaTao, HU ZheHui, CHEN MingHua, WU JunChen, ZHANG HongYan, JIANG YouWu, XU Juan, CHEN JiaJing. Basing Fuzzy Modeling to Evaluate Sensory Quality Differences of ‘Orah’ Mandarin Fruits from Various Production Regions[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2024, 57(10): 2010-2022.

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.0578-1752.2024.10.012

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/Y2024/V57/I10/2010

图/表 13

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

表7

表8

图1

表9

图2

图3

图4

参考文献 39

[1]	朱攀攀. 不同气候区沃柑果实产量和品质比较研究[D]. 重庆: 西南大学, 2020.
	ZHU P P. Study on fruit yield and quality of Orah Mandarin in different climatic regions[D]. Chongqing: Southwest University, 2020. (in Chinese)
[2]	黄其椿, 李果果, 陈东奎, 刘吉敏, 陈香玲, 王茜, 刘要鑫, 胡承孝. 广西沃柑产业发展现状与对策建议. 中国南方果树, 2020, 49(5): 135-141, 149.
	HUANG Q C, LI G G, CHEN D K, LIU J M, CHEN X L, WANG X, LIU Y X, HU C X. Current status and development strategies of orah industry in Guangxi. South China Fruits, 2020, 49(5): 135-141, 149. (in Chinese)
[3]	李文广, 赖恒鑫, 彭良志, 何义仲, 杨万云, 凌丽俐, 付行政, 张瑞芝. 云南沃柑二次开花的果实品质分析. 果树学报, 2022, 39(2): 184-192.
	LI W G, LAI H X, PENG L Z, HE Y Z, YANG W Y, LING L L, FU X Z, ZHANG R Z. Quality analysis of fruits bore from summer and spring blooms of Orah mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco) in Yunnan Province. Journal of Fruit Science, 2022, 39(2): 184-192. (in Chinese)
[4]	周军, 李宏祥, 王春发, 孟亚萍, 张红, 李维. 我国晚熟沃柑发展存在的问题及建议. 现代农业科技, 2019(21): 100-101.
	ZHOU J, LI H X, WANG C F, MENG Y P, ZHANG H, LI W. Problems and suggestions of late-ripening Citrus reticulata blanco orah development in China. Modern Agricultural Science and Technology, 2019(21): 100-101. (in Chinese)
[5]	王晶. 锦橙贮藏期主要风味品质变化与调控研究[D]. 重庆: 西南大学, 2020.
	WANG J. Changes and regulation of main flavor quality in the fruit of Citrus sinensis Osbeck cv. Jincheng during postharvest storage time[D]. Chongqing: Southwest University, 2020. (in Chinese)
[6]	赵思颖, 李璐, 刘小茜, 赵钢军, 吴海滨, 罗剑宁, 龚浩, 郑晓明, 李俊星. 基于感官品质、质构特征及理化成分分析的中国南瓜果实感官综合评价预测模型. 食品科学, 2022, 43(23): 63-71.
	ZHAO S Y, LI L, LIU X X, ZHAO G J, WU H B, LUO J N, GONG H, ZHENG X M, LI J X. Predictive model for comprehensive quality evaluation of pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata) fruit based on sensory analysis, texture characteristics and physicochemical components. Food Science, 2022, 43(23): 63-71. (in Chinese) doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-20211011-105
[7]	MATSUO Y, MIURA L A, ARAKI T, YOSHIE-STARK Y. Proximate composition and profiles of free amino acids, fatty acids, minerals and aroma compounds in Citrus natsudaidai peel. Food Chemistry, 2019, 279: 356-363.
[8]	LIU Y, XIANG S M, ZHANG H P, ZHANG H Y, WU C Y, TANG Z H, WANG J B, XU J. Sensory quality evaluation of Korla pear from different orchards and analysis of their primary and volatile metabolites. Molecules, 2020, 25(23): 5567.
[9]	张海朋, 彭昭欣, 石梅艳, 温欢, 张红艳, 徐娟. 柑橘果实风味组学研究进展. 华中农业大学学报, 2021, 40(1): 32-39.
	ZHANG H P, PENG Z X, SHI M Y, WEN H, ZHANG H Y, XU J. Advances on citrus flavoromics. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University, 2021, 40(1): 32-39. (in Chinese)
[10]	HE Y Z, LI W G, ZHU P P, WANG M, QIU J Y, SUN H Q, ZHANG R Z, LIU P, LING L L, FU X Z, CHUN C P, CAO L, PENG L Z. Comparison between the vegetative and fruit characteristics of ‘Orah’ (Citrus reticulata Blanco) mandarin under different climatic conditions. Scientia Horticulturae, 2022, 300: 111064.
[11]	LADO J, GAMBETTA G, ZACARIAS L. Key determinants of citrus fruit quality: Metabolites and main changes during maturation. Scientia Horticulturae, 2018, 233: 238-248.
[12]	CHEN G, LI J, SUN Z W, ZHANG S J, LI G L, SONG C H, SUO Y R, YOU J M. Rapid and sensitive ultrasonic-assisted derivatisation microextraction (UDME) technique for bitter taste-free amino acids (FAA) study by HPLC-FLD. Food Chemistry, 2014, 143: 97-105. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.07.099 pmid: 24054218
[13]	MANNINEN H, ROTOLA-PUKKILA M, AISALA H, HOPIA A, LAAKSONEN T. Free amino acids and 5'-nucleotides in Finnish forest mushrooms. Food Chemistry, 2018, 247: 23-28. doi: S0308-8146(17)31953-2 pmid: 29277224
[14]	ZHANG P Y, ZHOU Z Q. Postharvest ethephon degreening improves fruit color, flavor quality and increases antioxidant capacity in ‘Eureka’ lemon (Citrus limon (L.) Burm. f.). Scientia Horticulturae, 2019, 248: 70-80.
[15]	ZHAO C J, SCHIEBER A, GÄNZLE M G. Formation of taste-active amino acids, amino acid derivatives and peptides in food fermentations-A review. Food Research International, 2016, 89: 39-47.
[16]	林媚, 张伟清, 王天玉, 柯甫志, 冯先桔, 姚周麟, 徐程楠. 15个杂交柑橘品种的果实游离氨基酸组成及其对风味品质的影响. 果树学报, 2022, 39(3): 352-365.
	LIN M, ZHANG W Q, WANG T Y, KE F Z, FENG X J, YAO Z L, XU C N. Study on the composition of free amino acid and the effects on fruit flavor quality in 15 hybrid citrus varieties. Journal of Fruit Science, 2022, 39(3): 352-365. (in Chinese)
[17]	ROOWI S, CROZIER A. Flavonoids in tropical citrus species. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2011, 59(22): 12217-12225. doi: 10.1021/jf203022f pmid: 21978223
[18]	LI S J, WANG Z, DING F, SUN D, MA Z C, CHENG Y J, XU J. Content changes of bitter compounds in ‘Guoqing No.1’ Satsuma mandarin (Citrus unshiu Marc.) during fruit development of consecutive 3 seasons. Food Chemistry, 2014, 145: 963-969.
[19]	QIU S S, WANG J. Application of sensory evaluation, HS-SPME GC-MS, E-nose, and E-tongue for quality detection in Citrus fruits. Journal of Food Science, 2015, 80(10): S2296-S2304.
[20]	SÁENZ-NAVAJAS M P, ALEGRE Y, DE-LA-FUENTE A, FERREIRA V, GARCÍA D, EIZAGUIRRE S, RAZQUIN I, HERNÁNDEZ-ORTE P. Rapid sensory-directed methodology for the selection of high-quality aroma wines. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2016, 96(12): 4250-4262.
[21]	SONG M T, XU H R, XIN G, LIU C J, SUN X R, ZHI Y H, LI B, SHEN Y X. Comprehensive evaluation of Actinidia arguta fruit based on the nutrition and taste: 67 germplasm native to Northeast China. Food Science and Human Wellness, 2022, 11(2): 393-404.
[22]	CHEN J J, ZHANG H Y, PANG Y B, CHENG Y J, DENG X X, XU J. Comparative study of flavonoid production in lycopene-accumulated and blonde-flesh sweet oranges (Citrus sinensis) during fruit development. Food Chemistry, 2015, 184: 238-246. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.03.087 pmid: 25872450
[23]	刘园, 向思敏, 王江波, 吴翠云, 唐章虎, 龚涵, 张雪, 徐娟. 库尔勒香梨挥发性物质及初生代谢物的GC-MS分析. 华中农业大学学报, 2020, 39(1): 44-52.
	LIU Y, XIANG S M, WANG J B, WU C Y, TANG Z H, GONG H, ZHANG X, XU J. GC-MS analyses of volatiles and primary metabolites in Korla Pear fruit. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University, 2020, 39(1): 44-52. (in Chinese)
[24]	KALEEM M M, NAWAZ M A, DING X C, WEN S Y, SHIREEN F, CHENG J T, BIE Z L. Comparative analysis of pumpkin rootstocks mediated impact on melon sensory fruit quality through integration of non-targeted metabolomics and sensory evaluation. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 2022, 192: 320-330. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2022.10.010 pmid: 36302334
[25]	LIU Y B, QIAO Z N, ZHAO Z J, WANG X, SUN X Y, HAN S N, PAN C M. Comprehensive evaluation of Luzhou-flavor liquor quality based on fuzzy mathematics and principal component analysis. Food Science & Nutrition, 2022, 10(6): 1780-1788.
[26]	DEBJANI C, DAS S, DAS H. Aggregation of sensory data using fuzzy logic for sensory quality evaluation of food. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 2013, 50(6): 1088-1096. doi: 10.1007/s13197-011-0433-x pmid: 24426020
[27]	SINIJA V R, MISHRA H N. Fuzzy analysis of sensory data for quality evaluation and ranking of instant green tea powder and granules. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 2011, 4(3): 408-416.
[28]	TAHSIRI Z, NIAKOUSARI M, KHOSHNOUDI-NIA S, HOSSEINI S M H. Sensory evaluation of selected formulated milk barberry drinks using the fuzzy approach. Food Science & Nutrition, 2017, 5(3): 739-749.
[29]	SHENG L, SHEN D D, LUO Y, SUN X H, WANG J Q, LUO T, ZENG Y L, XU J, DENG X X, CHENG Y J. Exogenous γ-aminobutyric acid treatment affects citrate and amino acid accumulation to improve fruit quality and storage performance of postharvest citrus fruit. Food Chemistry, 2017, 216: 138-145.
[30]	YUN J, CUI C J, ZHANG S H, ZHU J J, PENG C Y, CAI H M, YANG X G, HOU R Y. Use of headspace GC/MS combined with chemometric analysis to identify the geographic origins of black tea. Food Chemistry, 2021, 360: 130033.
[31]	JUKIĆ ŠPIKA M, DUMIČIĆ G, BRKIĆ BUBOLA K, SOLDO B, BAN S G, VULETIN SELAK G, LJUBENKOV I, MANDUŠIĆ M, ŽANIĆ K. Modification of the sensory profile and volatile aroma compounds of tomato fruits by the scion × rootstock interactive effect. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2020, 11: 616431.
[32]	莫健生, 唐志评, 贺申魁, 傅翠娜, 梅正敏, 区善汉, 肖远辉, 雷新南, 王明召, 牛英, 梁瑞郑, 徐玉君. 广西桂林沃柑不同采摘期果实品质比较. 中国南方果树, 2022, 51(4): 11-13.
	MO J S, TANG Z P, HE S K, FU C N, MEI Z M, OU S H, XIAO Y H, LEI X N, WANG M Z, NIU Y, LIANG R Z, XU Y J. Comparison of fruit quality of orah harvested at different time. South China Fruits, 2022, 51(4): 11-13. (in Chinese)
[33]	YANG Z Y, CAO X Y, ZHENG X W, WANG T Q, WANG J N, FENG F, YE C H. Biochemical, transcriptome and metabolome analysis of the pulp of Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck ‘Hong Jiang’ and its two variants reveal pathways regulating pulp taste, mastication, and color. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 2022, 60: 70-85.
[34]	张伟清, 林媚, 王天玉, 孙立方, 冯先橘, 姚周麟, 徐程楠, 王玥. 基于PCA分析和聚类分析的柑橘果实品质综合评价. 果树学报, 2023, 40(5): 902-918.
	ZHANG W Q, LIN M, WANG T Y, SUN L F, FENG X J, YAO Z L, XU C N, WANG Y. Comprehensive evaluation of citrus fruit quality based on principal component and cluster analysis. Journal of Fruit Science, 2023, 40(5): 902-918. (in Chinese)
[35]	MAO Y Z, TIAN S Y, QIN Y M, CHEN S W. Sensory sweetness and sourness interactive response of sucrose-citric acid mixture based on synergy and antagonism. NPJ Science of Food, 2022, 6: 33. doi: 10.1038/s41538-022-00148-0 pmid: 35853883
[36]	QIN C L, CHEN C M, YUAN Q C, JIANG N, LIU M X, DUAN Y, WAN H, LI R, ZHUANG L J, WANG P. Biohybrid tongue for evaluation of taste interaction between sweetness and sourness. Analytical Chemistry, 2022, 94(19): 6976-6985. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.1c05384 pmid: 35503097
[37]	刘韬, 乔宁, 饶敏, 桂家祥, 杨文侠. 基于色谱质谱联用技术分析纽荷尔脐橙果汁及其果酒的香气成分和苦味物质. 食品工业科技, 2018, 39(4): 244-249.
	LIU T, QIAO N, RAO M, GUI J X, YANG W X. Analysis of aroma components and bitter substances in Newhall navel orange juice and wine by chromatography-mass spectrometry. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2018, 39(4): 244-249. (in Chinese)
[38]	DE WIJK R A, POLET I A, ENGELEN L, VAN DOORN R M, PRINZ J F. Amount of ingested custard dessert as affected by its color, odor, and texture. Physiology & Behavior, 2004, 82(2/3): 397-403.
[39]	曾宪录, 林文健, 吴广霞, 陈志彬, 李必爱, 黎渊明, 林秀琼. 沙田柚感官品质的定量描述分析研究. 广东农业科学, 2019, 46(6): 23-29.
	ZENG X L, LIN W J, WU G X, CHEN Z B, LI B A, LI Y M, LIN X Q. Quantitative descriptive analysis of sensory quality of Citrus grandis. Guangdong Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 46(6): 23-29. (in Chinese)

样品编号 Number of samples	样品来源 Source of samples	采样地点 Sampling locations
1	永春芦柑综合试验站 Yongchun Rutabaga comprehensive experimental station	福建泉州市永春县岵山镇 Hushan town, Yongchun county, Quanzhou city, Fujian province
2	云南柠檬综合试验站 Yunnan lemon comprehensive experimental station	云南省瑞丽市勐卯镇沃柑示范基地 Orah Mandarin demonstration base in Mengmao town, Ruili city, Yunnan province
3	平和琯溪蜜柚综合试验站 Pinghe Guanximiyou comprehensive experimental station	福建漳州市平和县 Pinghe county, Zhangzhou city, Fujian province
4	桂中南柑橘综合试验站 Guizhongnan citrus comprehensive experimental station	广西壮族自治区南宁市西乡塘区 Xixiangtang district, Nanning city, Guangxi province
5	广州柑橘综合试验站 Guangzhou citrus comprehensive experimental station	广东茂名市化州市 Huazhou city, Maoming city, Guangdong province
6	沙田柚综合试验站 Shatianyou comprehensive experimental station	广东梅州市丰顺县龙岗镇 Longgang town, Fengshun county, Meizhou city, Guangdong province
7	桂北柑橘综合试验站 Guibei citrus comprehensive experimental station	广西壮族自治区桂林市七星区 Qixing district, Guilin city, Guangxi province
8	云南极早熟柑橘综合试验站 Yunnan comprehensive experimental station for extremely early-maturing citrus	云南玉溪市华宁县华溪镇 Huaxi town, Huaning county, Yuxi city, Yunnan province
9	广州柑橘综合试验站 Guangzhou citrus comprehensive experimental station	广东惠州市龙门县 Longmen county, Huizhou city, Guangdong province

样品编号 Number of samples	果实色泽 Peel color	果实外形 Fruit shape	果实香气 Fruit aroma	果肉甜度 Pulp sweetness	果肉酸度 Pulp acidity	果肉化渣性 Pulp mastication	质心排序综合得分及排名 Comprehensive scores and ranking based on centroid
1	4.37±0.83a	4.49±0.69a	3.77±0.99a	4.00±0.83a	3.80±0.79a	3.63±1.04bcd	70.24（1）
2	3.46±1.18b	3.83±1.00b	3.46±0.81abc	3.26±0.94b	3.29±1.00b	3.46±1.08cde	57.99（7）
3	3.94±0.98a	3.89±0.75b	3.57±0.80ab	3.86±0.93a	3.77±0.72a	3.66±0.86bcd	66.45（5）
4	3.91±0.69a	3.97±0.65b	3.83±0.81a	4.06±0.67a	3.77±0.83a	3.97±0.94ab	69.48（2）
5	3.14±0.99bc	3.34±1.07c	3.31±0.75bcd	3.80±1.04a	3.71±0.85a	3.86±0.96abc	61.07（6）
6	3.43±0.93b	3.83±0.77b	3.60±0.87ab	4.00±1.17a	3.89±1.04a	4.23±0.80a	67.11（3）
7	2.74±0.97c	2.97±0.88c	2.94±0.83d	3.09±0.73bc	3.23±0.93b	3.11±1.06e	49.84（8）
8	2.86±1.05c	2.97±0.97c	3.09±0.91cd	2.69±0.75c	3.14±0.96b	3.17±0.77de	47.99（9）
9	4.00±0.89a	3.97±0.84b	3.83±0.74a	3.83±0.91a	3.86±0.90a	3.40±0.90cde	66.58（4）

感官属性 Sensory attribute	人数 Number of people					权重三元模糊数 Weight ternary fuzzy number	相对权重三元模糊数 Relative weight ternary fuzzy number
感官属性 Sensory attribute	不重要 Not important	有些重要 Somewhat important	重要 Important	非常重要 Very important	极其重要 Extremely important	权重三元模糊数 Weight ternary fuzzy number	相对权重三元模糊数 Relative weight ternary fuzzy number
果实色泽Peel color	0	7	12	11	5	(60.00 25.00 21.43)	(0.155 0.065 0.055)
果实外形Fruit shape	3	4	16	11	1	(52.14 22.86 24.29)	(0.135 0.059 0.063)
果实香气Fruit aroma	2	9	13	8	3	(50.71 23.57 22.86)	(0.131 0.061 0.059)
果肉甜度Pulp sweetness	0	0	3	12	20	(87.14 25.00 10.71)	(0.226 0.065 0.028)
果肉酸度Pulp acidity	0	6	5	11	13	(72.14 25.00 15.71)	(0.187 0.065 0.041)
果肉化渣性Pulp slag	1	4	12	10	8	(64.29 24.29 19.29)	(0.166 0.063 0.050)

感官属性 Sensory attribute	F2	F3	F4	F5	F6	F7	F8	F9	属性排名 Attribute ranking
果实色泽Peel color	0.000	0.045	0.253	0.684	0.749	0.436	0.104	0.005	4
果实外形Fruit shape	0.005	0.122	0.470	0.831	0.616	0.261	0.041	0.000	6
果实香气Fruit aroma	0.018	0.171	0.521	0.835	0.554	0.195	0.024	0.000	5
果肉甜度Pulp sweetness	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.029	0.279	0.700	0.872	0.435	1
果肉酸度Pulp acidity	0.000	0.000	0.039	0.343	0.730	0.782	0.381	0.042	2
果肉化渣性Pulp slag	0.000	0.000	0.139	0.604	0.816	0.595	0.197	0.016	3

样品编号 Number of samples	可溶性固形物 Total soluble solid (%)	可滴定酸 Titratable acid (%)	固酸比 TSS/TA
1	13.40±0.45c	0.80±0.11ab	17.14±2.81
2	10.87±0.52e	0.72±0.05ab	15.15±1.07
3	13.80±0.29bc	0.75±0.16ab	19.41±5.22
4	12.17±0.34d	0.78±0.11ab	15.94±2.79
5	14.47±0.50ab	0.88±0.06a	16.61±1.60
6	15.37±0.66a	0.78±0.01ab	19.79±0.99
7	13.30±0.57c	0.76±0.10ab	17.79±1.65
8	11.60±0.24de	0.64±0.12b	18.59±3.11
9	14.27±0.62bc	0.67±0.11ab	21.91±3.33
变异系数 CV (%)	10.34	8.92	11.07