JOURNAL OF LIGHT INDUSTRY

CN 41-1437/TS  ISSN 2096-1553

加拿大烟叶与云南KRK26烟叶香气成分差异分析

帖金鑫,张青松,李永生,廖付,吴继忠,白冰,杨靖,李石头

downloadPDF
帖金鑫, 张青松, 李永生, 等. 加拿大烟叶与云南KRK26烟叶香气成分差异分析[J]. 轻工学报, 2023, 38(5): 74-82. doi: 10.12187/2023.05.010
引用本文:帖金鑫, 张青松, 李永生, 等. 加拿大烟叶与云南KRK26烟叶香气成分差异分析[J]. 轻工学报, 2023, 38(5): 74-82.doi:10.12187/2023.05.010
shu
TIE Jinxin, ZHANG Qingsong, LI Yongsheng, et al. Analysis of differential aroma components between Canada tobacco leaves and Yunnan KRK26 tobacco leaves[J]. Journal of Light Industry, 2023, 38(5): 74-82. doi: 10.12187/2023.05.010
Citation:TIE Jinxin, ZHANG Qingsong, LI Yongsheng, et al. Analysis of differential aroma components between Canada tobacco leaves and Yunnan KRK26 tobacco leaves[J]. Journal of Light Industry, 2023, 38(5): 74-82.doi:10.12187/2023.05.010
shu

加拿大烟叶与云南KRK26烟叶香气成分差异分析

  • 1. 浙江中烟工业有限责任公司 宁波卷烟厂, 浙江 宁波 315504;

  • 2. 浙江中烟工业有限责任公司 技术中心, 浙江 杭州 310000;

  • 3. 18新利直播 烟草科学与工程学院, 河南 郑州 450001

    • 作者简介:帖金鑫(1988-),男,山西省应县人,浙江中烟工业有限责任公司工程师,主要研究方向为卷烟产品设计与烟草化学。E-mail:tiejinxin@zjtobacco.com;

  • 基金项目:浙江中烟工业有限责任公司科技项目(2021330000340182)。
    中国烟草总公司重大科技项目(110202201053)

  • 中图分类号:TS422

Analysis of differential aroma components between Canada tobacco leaves and Yunnan KRK26 tobacco leaves

  • 1. Ningbo Tobacco Factory, China Tobacco Zhejiang Industiral Co., Ltd., Ningbo 315504, China;

  • 2. Technology Center, China Tobacco Zhejiang Industiral Co., Ltd., Hangzhou 310000, China;

  • 3. College of Tobacco Science and Engineering, Zhengzhou University of Light Industry, Zhengzhou 450001, China

  • Received Date:2023-03-17
    Accepted Date:2023-04-12

    CLC number:TS422

  • 摘要:为了解加拿大烟叶与云南KRK26烟叶的品质区别,通过主成分分析、正交偏最小二乘判别分析等方法,对二者香气成分的差异进行比较分析。结果表明:两种烟叶中共检测出9 类117 种香气成分,加拿大烟叶有114 种,云南KRK26烟叶有113 种,其中110 种为两者共有;筛选得到两种烟叶差异成分65种,占共有香气成分的50.6%,其中加拿大烟叶中22 种成分含量较高,占比为33.8%,主要为半挥发性有机酸类和倍半萜类,43种成分含量较低,占比为66.2%,主要为类胡萝卜素降解产物;相较于云南KRK26烟叶,加拿大烟叶中长链脂肪酸和倍半萜类含量较高,而类胡萝卜素降解产物(如巨豆三烯酮、大马酮、二氢大马酮等)含量相对较低。类胡萝卜素降解产物和半挥发性有机酸的差别,可能是造成两种烟叶香气风格差异的主要因素之一。
    Abstract:In order to understand the quality difference between Canada and Yunnan KRK26 tobacco leaves, the differences of aroma components were analyzed and compared by main component analysis and orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA). Test data showed that a total of 117 aroma components belonging to 9 classes were detected in the leaves, of which 110 components were shared by both, while 114 components were present in Canada tobacco leaves and 113 components in KRK26 tobacco leaves. Totally 65 differential aroma components were identified between the two tobacco leaves, accounting for 50.6% of the total aroma components common to them. Furthermore, 22 differential components had higher content (33.8%) in Canada tobacco leaves than that in KRK26 tobacco leaves, whereas 43 metabolites (66.2%) showed the opposite result which are mainly carotenoid degradation products. Compared with KRK26 tobacco leaves, Canada tobacco leaves had higher content of semi-volatile fatty acids and sesquiterpenes, while the content of carotenoid degradation products such as megastigmatrienones, damascenon and dihydrodamascenon was relatively low, which might be one of the factors causing the different sensory aroma characteristics of the two.
    1. [1]

      潘家华,周尚勇,李鸣,等.加拿大烤烟生产和品种的选育推广[J].中国烟草学报,2006,12(6):44-48.

    2. [2]

      王泽宗.关于深化烟叶产业供给侧结构性改革的思考[J].中国烟草学报,2019,25(4):113-117.

    3. [3]

      夏玉珍,王毅,牟定荣,等.福建和云南烤烟香韵风格特征差异与化学成分的关系[J].烟草科技,2015,48(6):68-72.

    4. [4]

      吴有祥,王玉平,杨佳玫,等.清香型烟叶的感官品质风格特征及主要化学成分[J].贵州农业科学,2014,43(1):40-44.

    5. [5]

      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.

    6. [6]

      DOS SANTOS F A,SOUSA I P,FURTADO N A J C,et al.Combined OPLS-DA and decision tree as a strategy to identify antimicrobial biomarkers of volatile oils analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry[J].Revista Brasileira de Farmacognosia,2018,28(6):647-653.

    7. [7]

      BYLESJÖ M,RANTALAINEN M,CLOAREC O,et al.OPLS discriminant analysis:Combining the strengths of PLS-DA and SIMCA classification[J].Journal of Chemometrics,2006,20(8/9/10):341-351.

    8. [8]

      CUADROS-INOSTROZA A,GIAVALISCO P,HUMMEL J,et al.Discrimination of wine attributes by metabolome analysis[J].Analytical Chemistry,2010,82(9):3573-3578.

    9. [9]

      SHEN T,HU F T,LIU Q R,et al.Analysis of flavonoid metabolites inChaenomeles petalsusing UPLC-ESI-MS/MS[J].Molecules,2020,25(17):3994.

    10. [10]

      KANG C D,ZHANG Y Y,ZHANG M Y,et al.Screening of specific quantitative peptides of beef by LC-MS/MS coupled with OPLS-DA[J].Food Chemistry,2022,387(1):132932.

    11. [11]

      王梦琪,朱荫,张悦, 等.“清香”与“栗香”绿茶中非挥发性化学成分的差异分析[J].食品科学,2021,42(14):151-158.

    12. [12]

      方贤胜,吴涛,肖良俊.基于广泛靶向代谢组学的浅黄色和紫色核桃内种皮成分差异分析[J].食品科学,2021,42(12):215-221.

    13. [13]

      CONSONNI R,POLLA D,CAGLIANI L R.Organic and conventional coffee differentiation by NMR spectroscopy[J].Food Control,2018,94(1):284-288.

    14. [14]

      ABDELRAHMAN M,ARIYANTI NUR A,SAWAD Y,et al.Metabolome-based discrimination analysis of shallot landraces and bulb onion cultivars associated with differences in the amino acid and flavonoid profiles[J].Molecules,2020,25(22):5300.

    15. [15]

      WANG C Y,FENG Y C,ZHANG S,et al.Effects of storage on brown rice (Oryza sativaL.) metabolites, analyzed using gas chromatography and mass spectrometry[J].Food Science & Technology,2020,8(6):2882-2894.

    16. [16]

      TIAN P,ZHAN P,TIAN H L,et al.Analysis of volatile compound changes in fried shallot (Allium cepaL. var. aggregatum) oil at different frying temperatures by GC-MS,OAV,and multivariate analysis[J].Food Chemistry,2021,345(30):128748.

    17. [17]

      YUAN F,CHENG K,GAO J H,et al.Characterization of cultivar differences of blueberry wines using GC-QTOF-MS and metabolic profiling methods[J].Molecules,2018,23:2376.

    18. [18]

      李亚南,崔传坚,陈江琳,等.基于挥发性风味物质的花椒产地溯源技术研究[J].食品工业科技,2022,43(2):293-303.

    19. [19]

      许洪庆,吕大树,张亚恒,等.二氯甲烷提取物致香成分GC/MS指纹图谱在烤烟香型鉴别中的应用[J].烟草科技,2017,50(1):30-40.

    20. [20]

      彭桂新,杨永锋,胡静宜,等.基于非挥发性有机酸的浓香型配打模块烟叶评价指标[J].烟草科技,2020,53(3):89-96.

    21. [21]

      任可,李天福,杨雪彪,等.云南德宏烤烟品种KRK26烟叶质量特征分析[J].西南农业学报,2019,32(10):2438-2444.

    22. [22]

      洪华俏,郭紫明,易克,等.卷烟主流烟气的中性和碱性香气成分分析[J].湖南农业科学,2008(3):140-142.

    23. [23]

      王晓辉,易斌,谭国治,等.基于烟叶原料化学特性的卷烟配方叶组分组方法[J].烟草科技,2018,51(8):10-17.

    1. [1]

      田金虎,袁颖,卢昕博,汤晓东,潘力,王雨凝,叶兴乾,蒋健. 微波预处理对加热卷烟用烤烟烟叶常规化学成分及挥发性香气成分的影响. 轻工学报, 2024, 39(2): 69-79.doi: 10.12187/2024.02.009

    2. [2]

      孟克迪,张国治,王赵改,史冠莹. 基于GC-IMS比较不同干燥方式对香椿挥发性成分的影响. 轻工学报, 2024, 0(0): -.

    3. [3]

      吴澄宇,李迎秋. 韭花精油主成分对单增李斯特氏菌的抑菌活性和抑菌机理. 轻工学报, 2024, 0(0): -.

    4. [4]

      吴澄宇,李迎秋. 韭花精油主成分对单增李斯特氏菌的抑菌活性和抑菌机理. 轻工学报, 2024, 39(2): 36-42.doi: 10.12187/2024.02.005

    5. [5]

      楚文娟,樊文鹏,高子婷,韩路,田海英,姬小明,万纪强,来苗. 新型保润剂丙二醇吡咯酯的制备及其对再造烟叶保润效果研究. 轻工学报, 2024, 0(0): -.

    6. [6]

      楚文娟,樊文鹏,高子婷,韩路,田海英,姬小明,万纪强,来苗. 新型保润剂丙二醇吡咯酯的制备及其对再造烟叶保润效果研究. 轻工学报, 2024, 39(2): 87-93.doi: 10.12187/2024.02.011

    7. [7]

      何屹,杨本刚,尹嵩,陈实,尹晓东,周文忠,贾学伟,杨盼盼. 基于随机蛙跳筛选的初烤烟叶中β-胡萝卜素和叶黄素含量近红外模型的建立. 轻工学报, 2024, 39(2): 100-106.doi: 10.12187/2024.02.013

  • 加载中
WeChat 点击查看大图
计量
  • PDF下载量:37
  • 文章访问数:636
  • 引证文献数:0
文章相关
  • 收稿日期:2023-03-17
  • 修回日期:2023-04-12
    通讯作者:陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1.

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索
    帖金鑫, 张青松, 李永生, 等. 加拿大烟叶与云南KRK26烟叶香气成分差异分析[J]. 轻工学报, 2023, 38(5): 74-82. doi: 10.12187/2023.05.010
    引用本文:帖金鑫, 张青松, 李永生, 等. 加拿大烟叶与云南KRK26烟叶香气成分差异分析[J]. 轻工学报, 2023, 38(5): 74-82.doi:10.12187/2023.05.010
    shu
    TIE Jinxin, ZHANG Qingsong, LI Yongsheng, et al. Analysis of differential aroma components between Canada tobacco leaves and Yunnan KRK26 tobacco leaves[J]. Journal of Light Industry, 2023, 38(5): 74-82. doi: 10.12187/2023.05.010
    Citation:TIE Jinxin, ZHANG Qingsong, LI Yongsheng, et al. Analysis of differential aroma components between Canada tobacco leaves and Yunnan KRK26 tobacco leaves[J]. Journal of Light Industry, 2023, 38(5): 74-82.doi:10.12187/2023.05.010
    shu

    加拿大烟叶与云南KRK26烟叶香气成分差异分析

      作者简介:帖金鑫(1988-),男,山西省应县人,浙江中烟工业有限责任公司工程师,主要研究方向为卷烟产品设计与烟草化学。E-mail:tiejinxin@zjtobacco.com
    • 1. 浙江中烟工业有限责任公司 宁波卷烟厂, 浙江 宁波 315504;
    • 2. 浙江中烟工业有限责任公司 技术中心, 浙江 杭州 310000;
    • 3. 18新利直播 烟草科学与工程学院, 河南 郑州 450001
    • 收稿日期: 2023-03-17
    • 录用日期: 2023-04-12
    基金项目:浙江中烟工业有限责任公司科技项目(2021330000340182)。中国烟草总公司重大科技项目(110202201053)

    摘要:为了解加拿大烟叶与云南KRK26烟叶的品质区别,通过主成分分析、正交偏最小二乘判别分析等方法,对二者香气成分的差异进行比较分析。结果表明:两种烟叶中共检测出9 类117 种香气成分,加拿大烟叶有114 种,云南KRK26烟叶有113 种,其中110 种为两者共有;筛选得到两种烟叶差异成分65种,占共有香气成分的50.6%,其中加拿大烟叶中22 种成分含量较高,占比为33.8%,主要为半挥发性有机酸类和倍半萜类,43种成分含量较低,占比为66.2%,主要为类胡萝卜素降解产物;相较于云南KRK26烟叶,加拿大烟叶中长链脂肪酸和倍半萜类含量较高,而类胡萝卜素降解产物(如巨豆三烯酮、大马酮、二氢大马酮等)含量相对较低。类胡萝卜素降解产物和半挥发性有机酸的差别,可能是造成两种烟叶香气风格差异的主要因素之一。

    English Abstract

    参考文献 (23) 相关文章 (7)

    目录

    /

      返回文章

      网站版权 © 轻工学报编辑部

      地址：河南省郑州市科学大道136号邮编：450001

      本系统由北京仁和汇智信息技术有限公司开发 技术支持：info@rhhz.net