基于PCA-Entropy TOPSIS的甘薯品种块根质构品质评价

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.11.003

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】Texture quality are important indicators for the evaluation of sweetpotato root quality, which directly affects its fresh food and post-harvest processing. Texture quality evaluation is not only an important procedure of sweetpotato variety breeding and comprehensive utilization, but also to provide an important reference for sweetpotato breeding and its utilization. 【Method】Texture qualities (hardness、adhesiveness, cohesiveness, springiness, gumminess, and chewiness) of 45 sweetpotato varieties were analyzed with texture profile analysis method by using texture analyzer, and the correlation among the texture parameters was analyzed. The weight index of each parameter was determined by principal component analysis, and the texture quality of 45 sweetpotato tubers was evaluated by TOPSIS. 【Result】The results showed that textural parameters of 45 sweetpotato varieties were different from each other. The variation coefficient of chewiness and adhesiveness were 35.23% and 49.15%, respectively. Chewiness ranged from 60.30 to 284.66 N, with an average values of 149.29 N. Zheshu 13 has the maximum value of 284.66 N, while 166-7 and Longshu 14 have the minimum values of 60.30 N, 77.28 N, respectively. Adhesiveness ranged from -10.40 to -0.80 J, with an average value of -4.71 J. Longshu 31 has maximum value of -1.34 J, while Jizishu 2 and Pushu 32 have minimum values of -9.34 J, -10.40 J, respectively. The variation coefficient of cohesiveness and springiness were 14.27% and 15.75%, respectively. Cohesiveness ranged from 0.15 to 0.28, with an average value of 0.21. Shangshu 19 has maximum value of 0.28, while Hongpibaixin has minimum value of 0.15. Springiness ranged from 5.01 to 8.93 mm, with an average value of 6.59 mm. Xinong 431 has the maximum value of 8.93 mm, while 166-7 has the minimum value of 5.01 mm. The variation coefficient of hardness and gumminess were 19.47% and 23.84%, respectively. Gumminess ranged from 11.97 to 32.78 N, with an average value of 22.20 N. Pushu 32 has maximum value of 32.78 N, while 166-7 has minimum value of 11.97 N. Hardness ranged from 59.79 to 143.41 N, with an average value of 105 N. The value of Mianfen 1, Shangxuzi 1 and Sushu29 was more than 140.00 N, and 166-7 has minimum value of 59.79 N. Correlation analysis showed that hardness was significantly positively correlated with gumminess and chewiness. Gumminess had significant positively correlation with chewiness. Cohesiveness was significantly positively correlated with springiness, gumminess, and chewiness. Springiness had significant positive correlation with gumminess and chewiness. Six texture parameters were analyzed by principal component analysis method. The cumulative variance contribution rate of the three principal components was 94.674%. The weight index of hardness, adhesiveness, cohesion, elasticity, adhesiveness and mastication were 0.121, 0.161, 0.102, 0.232, 0.162 and 0.223, respectively. 【Conclusion】According to the comprehensive evaluation, starch-type sweetpotato varieties with better texture quality were Longshu 31, Shangshu 19 and Qishu 982. Fresh-type sweetpotato varieties with better texture quality were Sushu 16, Ziluolan and Xushu32.

Key words: sweetpotato, texture profile analysis, correlation, PCA-Entropy, TOPSIS

LI Ling,XU Shu,CAO RuXia,CHEN LingLing,CUI Peng,LÜ ZunFu,LU GuoQuan. Evaluation of Texture Quality of Sweetpotato Storage Roots Based on PCA-Entropy TOPSIS[J].Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2020, 53(11): 2161-2170.

Figures/Tables 6

Table 1

Textural parameters of different sweetpotato cultivars in TPA test "

品种 Cultivars	硬度 Hardness (N)	黏附性 Adhesiveness (J)	内聚性 Cohesiveness	弹性 Springiness (mm)	胶黏性 Gumminess (N)	咀嚼性 Chewiness (N)
166-7	59.79±9.98	-2.74±1.05	0.20±0.02	5.01±0.62	11.97±2.39	60.30±17.50
北京553 Beijing553	92.82±6.52	-2.81±1.51	0.20±0.04	5.78±0.45	18.59±3.44	107.39±21.70
潮薯1号 Chaoshu 1	90.76±7.10	-5.93±1.53	0.19±0.02	5.86±0.62	17.37±2.13	102.07±18.50
广薯87 Guangshu 87	99.50±5.58	-5.21±1.46	0.19±0.03	5.98±0.41	18.44±3.41	110.96±25.50
红皮白心 Hongpibaixin	92.92±8.18	-2.35±1.51	0.15±0.04	6.33±1.06	14.26±4.14	91.76±35.20
红香蕉 Hongxiangjiao	78.72±3.18	-7.25±1.24	0.21±0.01	6.20±0.45	16.23±1.42	100.92±15.00
冀薯98 Jishu98	123.98±6.72	-8.68±2.22	0.23±0.02	7.39±0.60	28.04±4.28	206.70±32.40
冀薯982 Jishu982	131.09±8.17	-7.43±2.34	0.20±0.01	6.27±0.46	25.69±2.45	161.74±24.90
冀紫薯2号 Jizishu 2	115.06±5.97	-9.34±2.95	0.23±0.02	6.83±0.39	26.54±2.51	181.53±23.50
龙薯14 Longshu 14	89.86±11.40	-2.29±0.963	0.16±0.02	5.41±0.67	14.16±2.42	77.28±19.50
龙薯9号 Longshu 9	86.26±12.30	-4.20±2.55	0.23±0.03	5.79±1.00	19.26±2.59	111.81±27.30
龙薯515 Longshu 515	80.66±6.57	-5.08±1.40	0.20±0.01	6.00±0.76	16.01±2.02	96.68±20.60
龙薯31 Longshu 31	108.49±10.90	-1.34±0.49	0.22±0.03	6.69±1.59	23.19±2.67	153.24±33.90
龙紫薯6号 Longzishu 6	99.40±4.06	-2.53±0.86	0.20±0.02	5.15±0.67	20.24±2.26	103.52±13.00
绵粉1号 Mianfen 1	143.41±8.88	-4.42±2.13	0.18±0.02	5.77±0.57	26.32±3.35	151.83±25.10
南薯007 Nanshu 007	93.81±4.27	-3.73±1.81	0.25±0.02	8.78±0.25	23.64±1.67	207.51±17.00
宁薯10号 Ningshu 10	71.35±2.57	-6.28±0.99	0.21±0.01	5.58±0.66	15.28±1.07	85.61±14.40
宁菜薯13 Ningcaishu 13	81.34±4.97	-6.24±1.36	0.25±0.01	6.68±0.67	20.14±1.28	134.25±14.60
宁紫薯2号 Ningzushu 2	114.75±8.18	-5.37±1.41	0.23±0.01	6.02±0.66	26.24±2.57	158.12±25.40
普薯32 Pushu 32	119.92±8.64	-10.4±3.88	0.27±0.02	6.37±0.54	32.78±3.54	209.01±29.9
秦薯5号 Qinshu 5	101.17±14.50	-6.57±1.64	0.19±0.02	6.2±0.26	18.88±2.52	117.31±17.70
秦紫薯2号 Qinzishu 2	137.64±12.2	-7.40±2.91	0.22±0.02	6.51±0.69	30.33±3.94	196.04±21.10
商薯19 Shangshu 19	101.14±6.98	-4.50±2.41	0.28±0.12	6.88±1.41	27.79±11.00	185.56±51.80
商薯8号 Shangshu 8	117.05±9.53	-1.46±0.81	0.25±0.04	8.81±0.16	29.02±5.38	255.61±47.40
商徐紫1号 Shangxuzishu 1	140.14±9.08	-4.14±1.73	0.19±0.02	6.14±0.43	26.32±3.05	162.29±26.50
苏薯16 Sushu 16	99.76±7.65	-6.86±2.38	0.23±0.06	7.14±0.64	22.75±7.96	165.79±72.70
苏薯25 Sushu 25	89.19±4.11	-8.19±1.93	0.24±0.01	5.89±0.80	21.10±1.41	124.06±17.50
苏薯29 Sushu 29	142.45±20.9	-3.41±1.92	0.19±0.02	6.98±0.72	26.86±3.20	188.8±37.10
苏渝303 Suyu 303	108.41±14.6	-3.15±3.03	0.18±0.04	6.26±1.13	19.60±6.76	125.92±54.60
台湾英沟 Taiwanyingou	85.27±3.94	-5.72±1.45	0.21±0.02	5.54±0.61	18.27±1.82	101.15±14.80
西农431 Xinong 431	91.14±4.19	-3.99±0.617	0.24±0.01	8.93±0.15	21.88±2.17	195.51±21.00
湘薯98 Xiangshu 98	119.29±10.10	-1.27±0.568	0.25±0.03	8.92±0.07	29.33±3.87	261.86±35.70
湘菜薯2号 Xiangcaishu 2	111.76±7.76	-3.69±1.75	0.19±0.03	6.39±0.62	21.44±4.46	138.73±40.70
心香 Xinxiang	131.07±13.50	-2.31±1.29	0.16±0.02	6.09±0.379	21.28±2.66	129.47±17.80
徐薯22 Xushu 22	113.87±14.90	-3.08±1.37	0.18±0.04	5.96±1.13	20.52±4.23	123.08±43.80
徐薯32 Xushu 32	119.70±23.40	-4.59±1.94	0.2±0.03	6.57±0.94	22.90±3.06	149.99±26.10
徐紫薯8号 Xuzishu 8	132.04±6.57	-6.70±1.38	0.22±0.03	6.00±0.73	29.03±4.61	174.17±35.20
徐紫薯5号 Xuzishu 5	85.27±14.30	-2.98±3.03	0.18±0.03	7.10±1.58	15.31±4.40	111.3±47.90
遗字138 Yizi 138	104.72±11.50	-2.99±1.02	0.18±0.01	6.22±0.22	18.85±1.84	117.26±11.60
豫薯10号 Yushu 10	77.86±10.50	-7.62±1.49	0.24±0.02	6.32±0.34	18.25±1.79	115.22±12.50
浙薯33 Zheshu 33	113.39±6.62	-2.69±1.11	0.20±0.02	5.91±0.55	22.31±3.17	130.86±16.20
浙薯13 Zheshu 13	120.36±7.09	-0.80±0.354	0.27±0.02	8.89±0.12	32.03±2.99	284.66±27.40
浙紫薯1号 Zhezishu 1	138.07±9.14	-2.80±1.66	0.22±0.02	8.52±1.09	30.63±2.33	260.41±36.20
郑薯20 Zhengshu 20	92.82±5.62	-6.02±2.61	0.18±0.03	6.51±0.53	16.37±3.31	107.83±27.40
紫罗兰 Ziluolan	104.64±5.80	-5.47±2.37	0.23±0.05	7.82±1.16	23.41±5.10	182.91±46.60
平均Mean	105.60	-4.71	0.21	6.59	22.20	149.29
变异系数CV(%)	19.47	49.15	14.27	15.75	23.84	35.23

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

The decision-making matrix R and analysis results of TOPSIS"

品种 Cultivars	决策矩阵R						C_i	排序 Sorting
品种 Cultivars	硬度 Hardness (N)	黏附性 Adhesiveness (J)	内聚性 Cohesiveness	弹性 Springiness (mm)	胶黏性 Gumminess (N)	咀嚼性 Chewiness (N)	C_i	排序 Sorting
166-7	0.0000	0.0646	0.0795	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000	0.1482	32
北京553 Beijing553	0.0948	0.0670	0.0769	0.0904	0.1018	0.0923	0.5385	24
潮薯1号 Chaoshu 1	0.0889	0.1489	0.0654	0.0994	0.0830	0.0819	0.5840	20
广薯87 Guangshu 87	0.1140	0.1471	0.0564	0.1137	0.0995	0.0994	0.6484	9
红皮白心 Hongpibaixin	0.0951	0.0517	0.0000	0.1554	0.0352	0.0617	0.4107	28
红香蕉 Hongxiangjiao	0.0543	0.1050	0.0923	0.1396	0.0655	0.0797	0.5521	22
冀紫薯2号 Jizishu 2	0.0814	0.0353	0.0769	0.2136	0.0960	0.2023	0.7260	7
龙薯14 Longshu 14	0.0863	0.0496	0.0128	0.0464	0.0337	0.0333	0.2698	31
龙薯9号 Longshu 9	0.0760	0.1133	0.0846	0.0911	0.1121	0.1010	0.5951	18
龙薯515 Longshu 515	0.0599	0.1427	0.0769	0.1162	0.0621	0.0713	0.5446	23
龙紫薯6号 Longzishu 6	0.1137	0.0577	0.0769	0.0164	0.1272	0.0848	0.4906	26
宁薯10号 Ningshu 10	0.0332	0.1373	0.0923	0.0669	0.0509	0.0496	0.4428	27
宁菜薯13 Ningcaishu 13	0.0619	0.1387	0.0462	0.1960	0.1256	0.1450	0.7341	5
宁紫薯2号 Ningzushu 2	0.0823	0.1523	0.0769	0.1185	0.1006	0.1918	0.7436	4
普薯32 Pushu 32	0.0674	0.0000	0.0154	0.1596	0.0000	0.1484	0.4022	29
秦紫薯2号 Qinzishu 2	0.0166	0.1000	0.0923	0.1760	0.0377	0.1738	0.6138	14
商徐紫1号 Shangxuzishu 1	0.0094	0.1113	0.0615	0.1326	0.0993	0.2000	0.6322	13
苏薯16 Sushu 16	0.1147	0.1180	0.0769	0.2101	0.1542	0.2069	0.9066	1
苏薯25 Sushu 25	0.0844	0.0737	0.0615	0.1033	0.1404	0.1250	0.6055	16
苏渝303 Suyu 303	0.1005	0.0783	0.0462	0.1467	0.1173	0.1287	0.6357	12
台湾英沟 Taiwanyingou	0.0731	0.1560	0.0923	0.0622	0.0969	0.0801	0.5770	21
西农431 Xinong 431	0.0900	0.1063	0.0615	0.0000	0.1524	0.1748	0.6022	17
湘菜薯2号 Xiangcaishu 2	0.0908	0.0963	0.0615	0.1619	0.1456	0.1538	0.7308	6
心香 Xinxiang	0.0354	0.0503	0.0189	0.1266	0.1432	0.1357	0.5249	25
徐薯32 Xushu 32	0.0681	0.1263	0.0769	0.1831	0.1519	0.1759	0.8051	3
徐紫薯8号 Xuzishu 8	0.0326	0.1233	0.0923	0.1162	0.0577	0.2167	0.6575	8
遗字138 Yizi 138	0.1110	0.0730	0.0462	0.1420	0.1058	0.1117	0.6069	15
豫薯10号 Yushu 10	0.0519	0.0927	0.0679	0.1534	0.0966	0.1077	0.5869	19
浙薯33 Zheshu 33	0.0862	0.0630	0.0769	0.1056	0.1590	0.1384	0.6475	10
浙薯13 Zheshu 13	0.0662	0.0000	0.0154	0.0047	0.0115	0.0000	0.1006	33
浙紫薯1号 Zhezishu 1	0.0153	0.0667	0.0923	0.0481	0.0331	0.0476	0.3119	30
郑薯20 Zhengshu 20	0.0948	0.1460	0.0462	0.1760	0.0677	0.0932	0.6421	11
紫罗兰 Ziluolan	0.1113	0.1557	0.0769	0.1303	0.1441	0.1995	0.8417	2

Table 6

References 36

[1]	LARYEA D, KOOMSON D, ODURO I, CAREY E . Evaluation of 10 genotypes of sweetpotato for fries. Food Science & Nutrition, 2019,7(2):589-598.
[2]	吴银亮, 王红霞, 杨俊, 范维娟, 杨楠, 殷旻昊, 张鹏 . 甘薯储藏根形成及其调控机制研究进展. 植物生理学报, 2017,53(5):749-757.
	WU Y L, WANG H X, YANG J, FAN W J, YANG N, YIN W H, ZHANG P . Advances in storage root development and regulation in sweetpotato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.]. Plant Physiology Journal, 2017,53(5):749-757. (in Chinese)
[3]	FLIS B, TATAROWSKA B, MILCZAREK D, PLICH J . Effect of location on starch content and tuber texture characteristics in potato breeding lines and cultivars. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B-Soil & Plant Science, 2017,67(5):453-461.
[4]	SATO A, TRUONG V D, JOHANNINGSMEIER S D, REYNOLDS R, PECOTA K V, YENCHO G C . Chemical constituents of sweetpotato genotypes in relation to textural characteristics of processed french fries. Food Chemistry, 2018,83(1):60-73.
[5]	潘超, 陈春晓, 叶夏芳, 吴鑫, 陈丽, 陆国权 . 甘薯块根质构特性的检测方法优化. 保鲜与加工, 2018,18(2):94-99.
	PAN C, CHEN C X, YE X F, WU X, CHEN L, LU G Q . Optimization of detection method of the texture properties of sweetpotato root tuber. Storage and Process, 2018,18(2):94-99. (in Chinese)
[6]	SZCZESNIAK A . Texture is a sensory property. Food Quality & Preference, 2002,13(4):215-225.
[7]	TANIWAKI M, KOHYAMA K . Mechanical and acoustic evaluation of potato chip crispness using a versatile texture analyzer. Journal of Food Engineering, 2012,112(4):268-273. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2012.05.015
[8]	刘丙花, 王开芳, 王小芳, 梁静, 白瑞亮, 谢小锋, 孙蕾 . 基于主成分分析的蓝莓果实质地品质评价. 核农学报, 2019,33(5):93-101.
	LIU B H, WANG K F, WANG X F, LIANG J, BAI R L, XIE X F, SUN L . Evaluation of fruit texture quality of blueberry based on principal component analysis. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2019,33(5):93-101. (in Chinese)
[9]	SAMUEL O W, ASOGBON G M, SANGAIAH A K, PENG F, GUANGLIN L . An integrated decision support system based on ANN and fuzzy AHP for heart failure risk prediction. Expert Systems with Applications, 2017,68(2017):163-172. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.10.020
[10]	骆汝九, 胡治球, 宋雯, 徐辰武 . 多性状综合评定的秩和差测验方法. 中国农业科学, 2010,43(10):2008-2015.
	LUO R J, HU Z Q, SONG W, XU C W . A rank-sum-difference testing method for multi-trait comprehensive ranking. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2010,43(10):2008-2015. (in Chinese)
[11]	SOUSA C C , DAMASCENO-SILVA K J, BASTOS E A, ROCHA M M. Selection of cowpea progenies with enhanced drought-tolerance traits using principal component analysis. Genetics and Molecular Research, 2015,14(4):1598-1605.
[12]	骆汝九, 胡治球, 宋雯, 徐辰武 . 多性状综合评定的秩和测验方法及其应用. 中国农业科学, 2009,42(8):2686-2694.
	LUO R J, HU Z Q, SONG W, XU C W . A rank-sum testing method for multi-trait comprehensive ranking and its application. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2009,42(8):2686-2694. (in Chinese)
[13]	徐小万, 雷建军, 李颖, 罗少波, 王恒明, 徐晓美, 李涛 . 现蕾期辣椒耐高温多湿性CA-TOPSIS综合评定. 热带作物学报, 2013,34(9):1747-1751.
	XU X W, LEI J J, LI Y, LUO S B, WANG H M, XU X M, LI T . Comprehensive evaluation for high temperature and humidity resistance in pepper( Capsicum annuum L.)budding. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2013,34(9):1747-1751. (in Chinese)
[14]	ZHOU S, LIU B, MENG J . Quality evaluation of raw moutan cortex using the AHP and gray correlation-TOPSIS method. Pharmacognosy Magazine, 2017,13(51):528-533. doi: 10.4103/0973-1296.211029
[15]	ALESSANDRINI L, BALESTRA F, ROMANI S, ROCCULI P, ROSA M D . Physicochemical and sensory properties of fresh potato-based pasta (gnocchi). Journal of Food Science, 2010,75(9):542-547.
[16]	LIANG X D, LIU C M, LI Z . Measurement of scenic spots sustainable capacity based on PCA-entropy TOPSIS: A case study from 30 provinces, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2017,15(1):10-29. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15010010
[17]	SINGH V, GUIZANI N, AL-ALAWI A, CLAEREBOUDTB M, RAHMANA M S . Instrumental texture profile analysis (TPA) of date fruits as a function of its physico-chemical properties. Industrial Crops and Products, 2013,50(10):866-873. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2013.08.039
[18]	LANZA B, AMORUSO F . Measurement of kinaesthetic properties of in-brine table olives by microstructure of fracture surface, sensory evaluation, and texture profile analysis (TPA). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2018,98(11):4142-4150. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.2018.98.issue-11
[19]	陈丽 . 甘薯块根质构特性的评价研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江农林大学, 2013.
	CHEN L . Evaluation of the texture characteristics of sweetpotato roots[D]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang Agriculture and Forestry University, 2013. ( in Chinese)
[20]	BIANCHI T, GUERRERO L, GRATACÓS-CUBARSÍ M, CLARET A, ARGYRIS J, GARCIA-MAS L, HORTÓS M, . Textural properties of different melon (Cucumis melo L.) fruit types: Sensory and physical-chemical evaluation. Scientia Horticulturae, 2016,201(30):46-56. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2016.01.028
[21]	LI C Y, LUO J W, MACLEAN D . A novel instrument to delineate varietal and harvest effects on blue berry fruit texture during storage. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2011,91(9):1653-1658. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.4362
[22]	杨玲, 肖龙, 王强, 张彩霞, 丛佩华, 田义 . 质地多面分析(TPA)法测定苹果果肉质地特性. 果树学报, 2014,31(5):977-985.
	YANG L, XIAO L, WANG Q, ZHANG C X, CONG P H, TIAN Y . Study on texture properties of apple flesh by using texture profile analysis. Journal of Fruit Science, 2014,31(5):977-985. (in Chinese)
[23]	刘莉, 高星, 华德平, 刘翔, 李志文, 张平, 李三培, 张少慧 . 不同的质构检测方法对甜瓜果肉质构的评价. 天津大学学报(自然科学与工程技术版), 2016,49(8):875-881.
	LIU L, GAO X, HUA D P, LIU X, LI Z W, ZHANG P, LI S P, ZHANG S H . Evaluation of texture of melon pulp by different texture detection methods. Journal of Tianjin University(Natural Science and Engineering Technology Edition), 2016,49(8):875-881. (in Chinese)
[24]	公丽艳, 孟宪军, 刘乃侨, 毕金峰 . 基于主成分与聚类分析的苹果加工品质评价. 农业工程学报, 2014,30(13):276-285.
	GONG L Y, MENG X J, LIU N Q, BI J F . Evaluation of apple quality based on principal component and hierarchical cluster analysis. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2014,30(13):276-285. (in Chinese)
[25]	GOYENECHE R, ROURA S, DI SCALA K . Principal component and hierarchical cluster analysis to select hurdle technologies for minimal processed radishes. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 2014,57(2):522-529. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2014.02.022
[26]	NAKAMURA Y, KURANOUCHI T, AKIKO O T, ISHIDA N, KODA I, IWASAWA N, MATSUDA T, KUMAGAI T . Cell structure, water status and starch properties in tuberous root tissue in relation to the texture of steamed sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam). Japanese Journal of Crop Science, 2010,79(3):284-295. doi: 10.1626/jcs.79.284
[27]	NAKAMURA Y, AKIKO O T, KURANOUCHI T, KATAYAMA K . Disintegration of steamed root tissues of sweetpotato and its relation to texture and the contents of starch, calcium and pectic substances. Nippon Shokuhin Kagaku Kogaku Kaishi, 2015,62(12):555-562. doi: 10.3136/nskkk.62.555
[28]	ANDO T, YASUDA M, HISAKA H . Effect of storage period on free sugar and starch contents of six sweetpotato varieties with different taste on baking, and quantification of sweetness and texture. Horticultural Research, 2018,17(4):449-457.
[29]	YOON H, NO J, KIM W, SHIN M . Textural character of sweetpotato root of Korean cultivars in relation to chemical constituents and their properties. Food Science and Biotechnology, 2018,27(6):1627-1637. doi: 10.1007/s10068-018-0429-7
[30]	TRUONG V D, HAMANN D D, WALTER W M . Relationship between instrumental and sensory parameters of cooked sweetpotato texture. Journal of Texture Studies, 1997,28(2):163-185. doi: 10.1111/jts.1997.28.issue-2
[31]	林子龙, 郭其茂, 陈根辉, 黄艳霞, 杨立明 . 高产优质兼用型甘薯新品种龙薯31号的选育[J]. 福建农业学报, 2018,172(3):34-39.
	LIN Z L, GUO Q M, CHEN G H, HUANG Y X, YANG L M . Breeding a new sweetpotato variety, Longshu 31. Fujian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2018,172(3):34-39. (in Chinese)
[32]	唐忠厚, 魏猛, 陈晓光, 史新敏, 张爱君, 李洪民, 丁艳锋 . 不同肉色甘薯块根主要营养品质特征与综合评价. 中国农业科学, 2014,47(9):1705-1714. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2014.09.005
	TANG Z H, WEI M, CHEN X G, SHI X M, ZHANG A J, LI H M, DING Y F . Characters and comprehensive evaluation of nutrient quality of sweetpotato storage root with different flesh colors. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2014,47(9):1705-1714. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2014.09.005
[33]	鞠栋 . 薯渣复配粉营养与功能特性分析及馒头加工工艺研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2017.
	JU D . Study on the nutritional and functional properties of potato/ sweetpotato residue compound flour and steamed bread processing technology thereof[D]. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2017. ( in Chinese)
[34]	谢一芝, 郭小丁, 贾赵东, 马佩勇, 边小峰 . 食用甘薯新品种苏薯16号的选育及栽培技术. 江苏农业科学, 2012,40(7):104-105.
	XIE Y Z, GUO X D, JIA Z D, MA P Y, BIAN X F . Breeding and cultivation techniques of edible sweetpotato variety Sushu 16. Jiangsu Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2012,40(7):104-105. (in Chinese)
[35]	尹艳, 梁艳梅, 林善梦, 罗小梅, 宋冠华, 段纯 . 热浸提“紫罗兰”紫薯花青素的工艺条件优化研究. 北方园艺, 2015(18):136-139.
	YIN Y, LIANG Y M, LIN S M, LUO X M, SONG G H, DUAN C . Optimization of hot extraction conditions of anthocyanins from ‘Violet’ purple sweetpotato.Northern Gardening, 2015(18):136-139. (in Chinese)
[36]	唐忠厚, 张爱君, 陈晓光, 魏猛, 靳容, 李洪民 . 优质鲜食型甘薯新品种‘徐薯32’的选育及特性分析. 植物科学学报, 2016,34(5):781-789. doi: 10.11913/PSJ.2095-0837.2016.50781
	TANG Z H, ZHANG A J, CHEN X G, WEI M, JIN R, LI H M . Breeding and appraisal of new sweetpotato cultivar ‘Xushu 32’with high quality. Plant Science Journal, 2016,34(5):781-789. (in Chinese) doi: 10.11913/PSJ.2095-0837.2016.50781

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

Comments

Recommended 0

No Suggested Reading articles found!

质构参数 Textural parameters	硬度 Hardness	黏附性 Adhesiveness	内聚性 Cohesiveness	弹性 Springiness	胶黏性 Gumminess	咀嚼性 Chewiness
硬度Hardness	1
黏附性Adhesiveness	0.049	1
内聚性Cohesiveness	-0.014	-0.268	1
弹性Springiness	0.264	0.216	0.537**	1
胶黏性Gumminess	0.794**	-0.116	0.585**	0.541**	1
咀嚼性Chewiness	0.628**	0.068	0.638**	0.840**	0.903**	1

主成分 Principal components	特征值 Eigenvalue	方差贡献率 Variance contribution rate (%)	累计方差贡献率 Cumulative variance contribution rate (%)
1	3.378	56.303	56.303
2	1.246	20.766	77.069
3	1.056	17.605	94.674
4	0.304	5.075	99.748
5	0.013	0.213	99.961
6	0.002	0.039	100.000

性状 Trait	主成份 Principal components			权重 Evaluate weight
性状 Trait	1	2	3	权重 Evaluate weight
硬度 Hardness	0.660	0.432	-0.612	0.121
黏附性 Adhesiveness	-0.008	0.832	0.494	0.161
内聚性 Cohesiveness	0.672	-0.597	0.326	0.102
弹性 Springiness	0.789	0.086	0.490	0.232
胶黏性 Gumminess	0.942	-0.005	-0.293	0.162
咀嚼性 Chewiness	0.991	0.060	0.078	0.223

品种 Cultivars	决策矩阵R						C_i	排序 Sorting
品种 Cultivars	硬度 Hardness (N)	黏附性 Adhesiveness (J)	内聚性 Cohesiveness	弹性 Springiness (mm)	胶黏性 Gumminess (N)	咀嚼性 Chewiness (N)	C_i	排序 Sorting
冀薯98 Jishu98	0.0558	0.0573	0.0769	0.1807	0.0729	0.1529	0.6140	6
冀薯982 Jishu982	0.0354	0.0990	0.0769	0.1479	0.1090	0.1989	0.6866	3
龙薯31 Longshu 31	0.1002	0.0180	0.0923	0.1971	0.1475	0.1823	0.7590	1
绵粉1号 Mianfen 1	0.0000	0.1206	0.0531	0.0891	0.0993	0.1795	0.5575	10
南薯007 Nanshu 007	0.0976	0.0977	0.0462	0.0176	0.1405	0.1513	0.5670	9
秦薯5号 Qinshu 5	0.1188	0.1276	0.0577	0.1401	0.1063	0.1118	0.6816	4
商薯19 Shangshu 19	0.1187	0.1233	0.0000	0.2194	0.0767	0.1943	0.7539	2
商薯8号 Shangshu 8	0.0757	0.0220	0.0462	0.0141	0.0578	0.0570	0.2807	11
苏薯29 Sushu 29	0.0028	0.0870	0.0615	0.2288	0.0910	0.1880	0.6784	5
湘薯98 Xiangshu 98	0.0692	0.0157	0.0462	0.0012	0.0531	0.0447	0.2367	12
徐薯22 Xushu 22	0.0848	0.0761	0.0523	0.1117	0.1315	0.1231	0.5964	7
徐紫薯5号 Xuzishu 5	0.0731	0.0727	0.0434	0.2143	0.0514	0.1000	0.5711	8

Evaluation of Texture Quality of Sweetpotato Storage Roots Based on PCA-Entropy TOPSIS

RichHTML

PDF

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 6

References 36

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

[1]	CHEN MinDong, QIU BoYin, HUANG Hao, LI YongPing, WEN QingFang. Evaluation of Curd Texture Quality in Loose-Curd Cauliflower Germplasm [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2026, 59(6): 1302-1316.
[2]	ZHANG LiDong, GUO YiCong, HUANG HongYu, NIE Jing, WANG Bing, LI MengYu, LI JiaWang, SUI XiaoLei, LI YuHe. Correlation Analysis of Cucumber Fruit Quality Integrating Sensory Evaluation with Nutritional Traits and Flavor Compound Characteristics [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2026, 59(5): 1087-1100.
[3]	JU XiaoJun, ZHANG Ming, LIU YiFan, JI GaiGe, SHAN YanJu, TU YunJie, ZOU JianMin, ZHANG HaiTao, BIAN LiangYong, SHU JingTing. Integration of Intestinal Flora and Small Molecule Metabolite to Analyze the Role of Factors Regulating Feed Conversion in Broiler Chickens [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2025, 58(6): 1223-1238.
[4]	LI MingLi, WEN CaiYun, MA DongHao, LI CunJun, WANG YuWen, KANG Lu, LU Miao. Construction of Salinity Prediction Model Based on Optimal Selection of Soil Hyperspectral Characteristic Bands [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2025, 58(20): 4054-4069.
[5]	ZHAO DongLan, MA JuKui, XIAO ShiZhuo, ZHOU ZhiLin, ZHAO LingXiao, WANG Jie, DAI XiBin, SUN HouJun, CAO QingHe. QTL Analysis for Resistance to Stem Nematode Disease in Sweetpotato [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2025, 58(17): 3389-3399.
[6]	LÜ JinLing, YOU Ke, WANG XiaoFei, XIAO Qiang, LI WenFeng, MA Jin, YANG Qing, ZHANG JinPing, KONG HaiJiang, CHANG YunHua. Variation Characteristics and Key Influencing Factors of Near-Surface Ambient Ammonia Concentration in Typical Cropland Areas in Henan Province [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2025, 58(1): 127-140.
[7]	YANG YaHeng, JIA PeiLong, NIE LanChun, ZHAO WenSheng, ZHAO JiaTeng, WANG JinXiang, LIU Jie. Evaluation of Fruit Texture Quality in Melon [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2024, 57(8): 1560-1574.
[8]	GUO Jun, QU Liang, SHAO Dan, MA Meng, DOU TaoCun, LU Jian, HU YuPing, WANG XingGuo, WANG Qiang, LI YongFeng, GUO Wei, TONG HaiBing. Dissecting the Genetic Architecture of Yolk Ratio with Single-Step Genome-Wide Association Study [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2024, 57(21): 4356-4366.
[9]	SUN WeiHao, LIU Ting, SANG YiNan, YANG ZhengWei, ZHANG GaiSheng, SONG YuLong, ZHANG ShuangXi. Analysis of Heterosis and Combining Ability of Lodging Resistance Traits of Spring Wheat Varieties (Lines) in the Ningxia Yellow River Irrigation Area [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2024, 57(13): 2497-2508.
[10]	XI MengXue, SHEN Dan, SHI YiFan, LI ChunMei. Effects of TBHQ on Pyroptosis, Necroptosis and Inflammatory Damage of Chicken Embryonic Lung Tissues Induced by PM_2.5 from Chicken Houses [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(4): 779-787.
[11]	ZHANG KeNan, YIN HaiNing, WANG JiaKui, CAO JianHong, XI ZhuMei. Differences and Genesis of Grape Phenolic Compounds Among Different Altitudes in Yunnan Shangri-la [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(19): 3879-3893.
[12]	YU YongChao, FAN WenJing, LIU Ming, ZHANG QiangQiang, ZHAO Peng, JIN Rong, WANG Jing, ZHU XiaoYa, TANG ZhongHou. Genome-Wide Association Study of Nitrogen Use Efficient Traits in Sweetpotato Seeding Stage and Screening and Validation of Candidate Genes [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(18): 3500-3510.
[13]	FU Shan, LIANG Ye, XU JiuLiang, RUAN YunZe, LUO Jian, LI TingYu. Comprehensive Evaluation of Fruit Texture and Taste Quality of Pineapple Based on Multiple Methods [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(15): 3006-3019.
[14]	XIANG YuTing, WANG XiaoLong, HU XinZhong, REN ChangZhong, GUO LaiChun, LI Lu. Lipase Activity Difference of Oat Varieties and Prediction of Low Lipase Activity Variety with High Quality [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(21): 4104-4117.
[15]	DONG MingMing,ZHAO FanFan,GE JianJun,ZHAO JunLiang,WANG Dan,XU Lei,ZHANG MengHua,ZHONG LiWei,HUANG XiXia,WANG YaChun. Heritability Estimation and Correlation Analysis of Longevity and Milk Yield of Holstein Cattle in Xinjiang Region [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(21): 4294-4303.