基于综合赋权法的烤烟烟叶质量评价  

Quality evaluation of flue-cured tobacco leaves based on comprehensive weighting

作　　者：褚旭 王珂清[1] 魏建荣[1] 张建强 杨康 杜坚[1] 汤洋[1] 胡钟胜[1] 何亚浩 CHU Xu;WANG Keqing;WEI Jianrong;ZHANG Jianqiang;YANG Kang;DU Jian;TANG Yang;HU Zhongsheng;HE Yahao(Raw Material Supply Department,China Tobacco Jiangsu Industrial Co.,Ltd.,Nanjing 210019,China)

机构地区：[1]江苏中烟工业有限责任公司原料供应部

出　　处：《烟草科技》2019年第10期28-36,共9页Tobacco Science & Technology

基　　金：江苏中烟工业有限责任公司科技项目“丽江玉龙基地KRK26品种烟叶质量提升及工业验证”（Y040201624）

摘　　要：为建立更加合理的烟叶质量评价指标赋权方法,以江苏中烟工业有限责任公司云南11个基地单元的烟叶样本为研究对象,采用单一与综合赋权法评价烟叶质量的综合状况,并对赋权及评价结果进行对比分析。结果表明:①不同产区烟叶质量得分显示,烟叶的颜色、成熟度、叶片结构、身份较好,油分和色度稍弱;还原糖、糖碱比较高,总糖、总氮、氯及氮碱比适宜,总植物碱、钾含量、钾氯比稍低;香气质、香气量、透发性、细腻程度、柔和程度、圆润感及余味感官得分相近,烟叶评吸的杂气量较低,刺激性及干燥感均分相同。不同质量指标中标准差最大的是还原糖指标(5.76),最小的是余味指标(0.16);②单一赋权法中权重系数最大的分别为香气质指标0.086(层次分析法),还原糖指标0.119(标准差法),糖碱比指标0.2519(熵值法),其方差平均值(R^2mean)为16.67;③3种综合赋权法中权重系数最大和最小的均为糖碱比指标(0.184、0.162、0.138)和氯含量指标(0.006、0.008、0.010),其方差平均值(R2mean)为1.33;④3种综合赋权法中,基于离差平方和的综合赋权法评价得分差距更大,基于博弈论的综合赋权法评价结果间相关性更好,基于单位化约束的综合赋权法评价得分更高。3种综合赋权法较之单一赋权法计算得到的权重差异更小,评价结果更加一致,收敛性更好,与实际认知的符合度更高,能够在烤烟烟叶质量评价中更加合理地对不同质量指标进行赋权。In order to establish a more accurate weighting method for flue-cured tobacco quality evaluation, tobacco leaf samples were collected from 11 bases of China Tobacco Jiangsu Industrial Limited Corporation in Yunnan Province. Single and comprehensive weighting methods were used to evaluate tobacco leaf quality and the results of the weighting and evaluation were compared. The results showed that: 1) According to the quality scores of the tobacco leaves from the different planting areas, their color, maturity, leaf structure and leaf body were satisfactory;their oil and color intensity were slightly weaker;the reducing sugar and sugar/nicotine ratio were relatively high;their total sugar, nitrogen, chlorine and nitrogen/nicotine ratio were appropriate, and the total alkaloid, potassium content and potassium/chlorine ratio were relatively lower. The scores on aroma quality, aroma quantity, volatility, smoothness, mildness, mellowness and aftertaste were close;the offensive odor was relatively less, and the average scores on irritation and dryness were close. Among the quality indexes, the biggest and smallest standard deviations were 5.76 for reducing sugar;and 0.16 for aftertaste, respectively. 2) For the three single weighting methods, the highest weighting coefficients were 0.086 for aroma quality in AHP, 0.119 for reducing sugar in the standard deviation method and 0.251 9 for sugar/nicotine ratio in the entropy method;and the average of variance (R^2 mean) was 16.67. 3) The highest and lowest weighting coefficients of the three comprehensive weighting methods were 0.184, 0.162, 0.138 for sugar/nicotine ratio, and 0.006, 0.008, 0.010 for chlorine content, respectively;and the average of variance (R2 mean) was 1.33. 4) Among the three comprehensive weighting methods, the difference of scores evaluated by the method based on the sum of deviation squares was relatively higher, the evaluation results of the method based on the game theory had better correlations, and the evaluation score of the method based on units

关 键 词：烤烟 质量评价 单一赋权法 综合赋权法 化学成分 感官品质 

分 类 号：S572[农业科学—烟草工业]