| 1 | 0 | 7 |
| Downloads | Citas | Reads |
[Objective] To explore differences in the quality characteristics of flue-cured tobacco C3F grade and identify ways to improve quality in the “Huili and Huidong” tobacco-growing areas of Liangshan. [Method] Huili Honghuadajinyuan, Huili Yunyan 87, Huidong Honghuadajinyuan and Huidong Yunyan 87 were selected for research. [Result] Huili Honghuadajinyuan exhibited a lighter appearance color, lower maturity, and thinner identity, which are significantly inferior to those of the other three samples; in terms of physical characteristics, leaf density in the same production area was shown as Yunyan 87>Honghuadajinyuan, while stem content percentage was the opposite. Single leaf weight was higher in the Huidong production area than in the Huili production area; in terms of conventional chemical composition, Huili Honghuadajinyuan had higher total sugar and reducing sugar contents, but lower total nitrogen and nicotine contents. The comprehensive sensory quality score was highest in Huidong Yunyan 87, middle in Huidong Honghuadajin yuan and Huili Yunyan 87, and lowest in Huili Honghuadajinyuan. Leaf thickness, equilibrium moisture content, nicotine content, sugar-alkali ratio and K/Cl ratio were the physical and chemical indicators significantly associated with the total sensory quality score in the regression model. There were significant or extremely significant positive correlations between appearance color, leaf structure, there is an extremely significant positive correlation between body thickness and leaf thickness, nicotine content, body and equilibrium moisture content, oil content, color intensity and K/Cl ratio show significant or highly significant negative correlations. [Conclusion] In summary, Huili Honghuadajinyuan should prioritize improving leaf color and body; Huili Yunyan 87 should focus on enhancing maturity and leaf structure; Huidong Honghuadajinyuan should target improvements in color and leaf structure; and Huidong Yunyan 87 should emphasize increasing oil content and color intensity in tobacco production.
[1] 刘涛，董孜晟，付慧杰，等.凉山会东烟区不同海拔烟叶风格彰显分析[J].湖南农业科学，2025(3):17-21.
[2] 杨天旭，文俊，陈越立，等.凉山烟区生态因素与烟叶质量特点分析[J].烟草科技，2009,42(5):52-56,59.
[3] 江雪彬，刘峰峰，石刚，等.湖北产区不同长度高油分烟叶质量特征分析与叶长适宜范围研究[J].中国烟草学报，2022,28(3):63-71.
[4] 刘扣珠，高真真，李建华，等.豫中烤烟上六片烟叶叶长与主要化学成分及感官质量关系[J].中国烟草科学，2019,40(6):75-82,88.
[5] 高真真，刘扣珠，李建华，等.成熟期积温对豫中烟区浓香型烤烟上六片产质量的影响[J].中国烟草学报，2019,25(6):38-49.
[6] 徐秀红，王爱华，王传义，等.烘烤期间带茎采收的烤烟顶部叶某些生理生化特性变化[J].烟草科技，2006,39(9):51-54.
[7] 刘碧荣，马均，祖朝龙，等.高海拔烟区二次去叶对烤烟结构及产量和品质的影响[J].湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2017,43(1):12-18.
[8] 杨军，邱萍，姚晶，等.施氮水平对膜下滴灌烤烟的生长及化学品质的影响[J].湖南农业科学，2013(1):45-48.
[9] 罗杰，黄鸿，廖升万，等.膜下滴灌技术对黔西南州烤烟生产的影响[J].湖南农业科学，2013(21):20-22.
[10] 沈杰，王昌全，何玉亭，等.合理密植对不同株型烤烟冠层结构及光合生产特性的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报，2019,25(2):284-295.
[11] 沈晗，杨凯，任伟，等.影响上部烟叶感官质量的主要化学成分分析[J].中国烟草学报，2019,25(6):18-26.
[12] 张波，王树声，史万华，等.凉山烟区气象因子与烤烟烟叶化学成分含量的关系[J].中国烟草科学，2010,31(3):13-17.
[13] 杨超，丁根胜，万里兴，等.基于烟叶化学成分的卷烟叶组感官质量和风格研究[J].烟草科技，2018,51(8):85-91.
[14] 王战义，綦世飞，左伟标，等.文山烟区C3F质量稳定性分析[J].安徽农业科学，2023,51(19):179-181.
[15] 于建军，王改丽，叶贤文，等.四川会理烟区烤烟质量综合评价[J].湖南农业科学，2010(3):90-94.
[16] 周义和，尹启生，宋纪真，等.中国烟叶质量[M].北京：化学工业出版社，2021:80-87.
[17] 王信民，李锐，魏春阳，等.烤烟外观区域特征感官评价指标的筛选[J].烟草科技，2011,44(3):59-68.
[18] 范幸龙，周子方，张建强，等.不同烤烟品种中部叶主要品质性状差异分析[J].中国烟草科学，2019,40(2):73-79.
[19] 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，2001,34(10):5-9.
[20] 左伟标，蔡宪杰，王皓，等.沂蒙丘陵生态区蜜甜焦香烤烟外观特征及与烟叶品质的关系[J].中国烟草科学，2022,43(1):75-81.
[21] 过伟民，张艳玲，刘伟，等.烤烟品种间理化特性的差异及其与感官质量的关系[J].烟草科技，2016,49(5):23-29.
[22] 胡建军，马明，李耀光，等.烟叶主要化学指标与其感官质量的灰色关联分析[J].烟草科技，2001,34(1):3-7.
[23] 窦玉青，汤朝起，王平，等.闽西、赣中不同香型烤烟主要化学成分对吸食品质的影响[J].烟草科技，2009,42(11):15-20.
[24] 申玉军，于川芳，李晓红，等.三明地区不同部位烤烟糖碱比与部分感官质量关系的研究[J].中国烟草学会2006年学术年会论文集，2007:603-614.
[25] 常爱霞，杜咏梅，付秋娟，等.烤烟主要化学成分与感官质量的相关性分析[J].中国烟草科学，2009,30(6):9-12.
[26] 冯新维，杨磊，罗明全，等.烤烟新品种湘烟7号中部叶不同采收成熟度对烟叶品质的影响[J].中南农业科技，2025,46(10):18-21.
[27] 李昱霖，丁应福，王胜雷，等.烤烟烘烤过程风机频率对叶温和烟叶变黄失水的影响[J].河南农业科学，2022,51(3):173-180.
[28] 李冠辉，韦斌，方正华，等.不同采收方式对上部烟叶变黄失水规律及品质的影响[J].贵州农业科学，2025,53(3):10-16.
[29] 中国烟叶公司.中国烟叶生产实用技术指南2025[M].北京：中国农业出版社，2025:202-220.
[30] 张瑛，吴树松，郭学清，等.福建烟区清香型烤烟风格定位与化学成分的关系分析[J].南方农业学报，2024,55(10):2938-2947.
[31] 范幸龙，褚旭，贺彪，等.我国不同生态区云烟97烟叶主要品质性状差异分析[J].中国烟草科学，2019,40(5):77-82.
[32] 韦建玉，金亚波，吴峰，等.烤烟品种K326、云烟85及云烟87的适应性研究[J].安徽农业科学，2008,36(6):2362-2363,2372.
Basic Information:
China Classification Code:S572
Citation Information:
[1]FENG Lian-jun,WANG Zheng-xin,WEN Tao.Discussion on the Differences in Quality Characteristics and Improvement Methods of Flue-cured Tobacco C3F Grade in “Huili and Huidong” Tobacco-growing Areas of Liangshan State[J].Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences,2026,54(19):17-22.
Fund Information:
宽窄(国宝)臻品原料高可用性上部烟叶采烤技术研究(yl202203)
2026-01-27
2026
2026-02-25
2026-03-04
2026
1
2026-10-15
2026-10-15