湖南23 个桃品种果实品质分析及综合评价

doi:10.7506/spkx1002-6630-20250317-127

食品科学 ›› 2025, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (20): 36-46.doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-20250317-127

湖南23 个桃品种果实品质分析及综合评价

罗旭婷，刘伟，张群，王春发，付复华，杨明之

（1.湖南大学生物学院隆平分院，湖南长沙 410125；2.湖南省农产品加工与质量安全研究所，湖南长沙 410125；3.衡阳市农业科学院，湖南衡阳 421101；4.中国人民解放军31627部队政治工作部，广东深圳 518000）

出版日期:2025-10-25 发布日期:2025-09-16
基金资助:
“十四五”国家重点研发计划重点专项（2023YFD2100902）；湖南省水果产业技术体系项目（湘农发[2019]105号）

Quality Analysis and Comprehensive Evaluation of 23 Varieties of Peach Fruits in Hunan

LUO Xuting, LIU Wei, ZHANG Qun, WANG Chunfa, FU Fuhua, YANG Mingzhi

(1. Longping Branch, College of Biology, Hunan University, Changsha 410125, China;2. Hunan Institute of Agricultural Product Processing and Quality Safety, Changsha 410125, China;3. Hengyang Agricultural Science Institute, Hengyang 421101, China;4. Political Work Department of Unit 31627 of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, Shenzhen 518000, China)

Online:2025-10-25 Published:2025-09-16

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为全面、客观地评价不同桃品种的品质，本研究以湖南省23 个桃品种为实验材料，对桃的18 项品质指标进行测定。通过变异性分析、相关性分析及主成分分析筛选核心评价指标，并用熵权法确定核心评价指标的权重，最后采用灰色关联度分析法建立桃品质综合评价模型。结果表明，不同桃品种的外观品质、营养品质及主要功能性成分均差异显著（P＜0.05），各个品质指标间存在不同程度的相关性，基于主成分载荷矩阵及变异系数分析，筛选出单果质量、可溶性固形物含量、葡萄糖含量、类黄酮含量、柠檬酸含量和果形指数为核心评价指标，权重分别为23.77%、21.52%、15.32%、24.44%、7.08%、7.87%。灰色关联度分析结果表明，‘炎陵锦绣黄桃’‘苹果桃’‘甜无敌’位列前三，综合品质最优，‘中蟠7号’品质最差。聚类分析将23 个桃品种分为4 类，第I类富含总酚和花青素，适合开发成具有抗氧化功效的高附加值功能性保健产品；第II类综合品质较好，适合鲜食或者加工成高品质非浓缩还原果汁；第III类综合品质欠佳，可以考虑将此类品种加工成需添加糖酸等辅料的产品，如果脯、果酱、果酒、果醋等，实现资源的最大化利用；第IV类固酸比偏高，具有良好的风味，适合鲜食。本研究可为湖南省桃品种的选育、品质评价及综合利用提供理论依据。

关键词: 桃；主成分分析；熵权法；灰色关联度分析；聚类分析；综合评价

Abstract: To comprehensively and objectively evaluate the quality of different peach varieties, 23 peach varieties from Hunan Province were evaluated for 18 quality indicators. The core evaluation indicators were identified by variability analysis, correlation analysis, and principal component analysis (PCA), and their weights were determined by the entropy weight method. Subsequently, a comprehensive evaluation model of peach quality was established by grey relational analysis (GRA). The results showed significant differences (P < 0.05) in appearance, nutritional quality, and major functional components among the varieties, as well as varying degrees of correlation among the quality indicators. Based on the principal component loading matrix and coefficient of variation analysis, single fruit mass, soluble solids content, glucose content, flavonoid contents, citric acid content, and fruit shape index were identified as core evaluation indicators, with weights of 23.77%, 21.52%, 15.32%, 24.44%, 7.08%, and 7.87%, respectively. Grey relational analysis showed that ‘Yanlingjinxiu’ yellow peach, ‘Apple’ peach, and ‘Tianwudi’ peach ranked among the top three in terms of comprehensive quality, while ‘Zhongpan 7’ peach had the worst quality. According to cluster analysis, 23 peach varieties were divided into four categories. Category I was rich in total phenolics and anthocyanins, making it suitable for developing high-value-added health products with antioxidant effects. Category II had superior comprehensive quality and was suitable for fresh consumption or processing into high-quality not from concentrate (NFC) juice. Category III had relatively inferior comprehensive quality and could be considered for processing into products requiring the addition of sugar and acid, such as preserved fruits, jam, fruit wine, and fruit vinegar, thereby maximizing resource utilization. Category IV had a high solid/acid ratio and excellent flavor, making it suitable for fresh consumption. This study can provide a theoretical basis for the breeding, quality evaluation, and comprehensive utilization of peach varieties in Hunan province.

Key words: peach; principal component analysis; entropy weight method; grey relational analysis; cluster analysis; comprehensive evaluation

中图分类号:

S662.1

罗旭婷，刘伟，张群，王春发，付复华，杨明之. 湖南23 个桃品种果实品质分析及综合评价[J]. 食品科学, 2025, 46(20): 36-46.

LUO Xuting, LIU Wei, ZHANG Qun, WANG Chunfa, FU Fuhua, YANG Mingzhi. Quality Analysis and Comprehensive Evaluation of 23 Varieties of Peach Fruits in Hunan[J]. FOOD SCIENCE, 2025, 46(20): 36-46.

[1]	罗旭婷刘伟张群王春发付复华杨明之. 湖南23个桃品种果实品质分析及综合评价[J]. 食品科学, 0, (): 0-0.
[2]	谢小燕刘德讲李自芹李芳杰闫莹莹宋方圆陈计峦. 程序降温协同1-MCP、保鲜纸两种处理对新疆蟠桃贮藏品质和果皮褐变的影响[J]. 食品科学, 0, (): 0-0.
[3]	李倩倩刘大洋杨彪李伟强郭文川. 斜率/截距算法在猕猴桃可溶性固形物含量便携式检测中的应用[J]. 食品科学, 0, (): 0-0.
[4]	李倩倩，刘大洋，杨彪，李伟强，郭文川. 斜率/截距算法在猕猴桃可溶性固形物含量便携式检测中的应用[J]. 食品科学, 2018, 39(14): 257-262.
[5]	管峰徐雯钗袁勇军张瑞雪赵思敏陈秋平. 脉冲强光对枯草芽孢杆菌NG-2的灭活机理研究[J]. 食品科学, 0, (): 0-0.
[6]	郭东花，白红，石佩，杨艳青，李高潮，范崇辉. 不同时期套袋对“瑞光19号”油桃果实挥发性成分及着色的影响[J]. 食品科学, 2016, 37(8): 242-247.
[7]	郭东花. 不同时期套袋对“瑞光19号”油桃果实挥发性成分及着色的影响[J]. 食品科学, 0, (): 0-0.
[8]	郭东花. 不同果袋对“阿布白”桃果实香气成分的影响[J]. 食品科学, 0, (): 0-0.
[9]	郭东花. 不同钾肥用量对“重阳红”桃果实挥发性物质的影响[J]. 食品科学, 0, (): 0-0.
[10]	郭东花，赵彩萍，张静，贺会强，白红，石佩，刘航空，范崇辉. 不同钾肥用量对“重阳红”桃果实挥发性物质的影响[J]. 食品科学, 2016, 37(2): 109-114.
[11]	郭东花，范崇辉，李高潮，白红，石佩，贺会强，柴琳，连昭远. 不同果袋对“阿布白”桃果实香气成分的影响[J]. 食品科学, 2016, 37(2): 232-237.
[12]	杨勇马瑞娟张斌斌宋志忠严娟郭绍雷俞明亮. 不同肉质桃品种的2个成熟度果实常温贮藏特性比较[J]. 食品科学, 0, (): 0-0.
[13]	杨勇，马瑞娟，张斌斌，宋志忠，严娟，郭绍雷，俞明亮. 不同肉质桃品种的2 个成熟度果实常温贮藏特性比较[J]. 食品科学, 2015, 36(22): 237-243.
[14]	张佳俊，曹洪波，贾浩，李丹，陈海江*. 桃新品系‘保佳俊’果肉抗褐化生理机制研究[J]. 食品科学, 2015, 36(18): 247-251.
[15]	张佳俊曹洪波贾浩李丹陈海江. 桃新品系‘保佳俊’果实抗褐化生理机制研究[J]. 食品科学, 0, (): 0-0.

湖南23 个桃品种果实品质分析及综合评价

Quality Analysis and Comprehensive Evaluation of 23 Varieties of Peach Fruits in Hunan

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价