基于熵权-逼近理想解排序法综合评价我国主产区猕猴桃的品质-食品安全质量检测学报-CSCIED科技核心评价数据库-手机版

基于熵权-逼近理想解排序法综合评价我国主产区猕猴桃的品质

Comprehensive evaluation of Actinidia chinensis Planch quality in major producing areas of China based on entropy weight-technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution method

ES评分 0 浏览量：186 下载量：0

全文阅读下载引用收藏

DOI	10.19812/j.cnki.jfsq11-5956/ts.20250317007
刊名	食品安全质量检测学报 Journal of Food Safety and Quality
年，卷(期)	2025, 16(12)
作者	叶艳萍, 李凯茜, 毕亚楠, 林涛, 陈大明, 杜丽娟*,
作者单位	云南省农业科学院质量标准与检测技术研究所; 云南省农业科学院热区生态农业研究所
摘要	目的探究我国主产区猕猴桃与新西兰猕猴桃的品质差异, 并对其进行综合性评价。方法本研究以我国主产区和新西兰猕猴桃果实为实验材料, 分析猕猴桃果实的表型性状、营养成分和感官评定指标, 采用系统性描述、熵权-逼近理想解排序(technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution, TOPSIS)法, 对猕猴桃进行分析和综合评价。结果不同产区猕猴桃果实的品质指标存在显著差异, 红心猕猴桃为云南和陕西的可溶性固形物含量最高, 分别为15.9%和15.5%, 四川的总酸最低为0.86%, 云南和四川的可溶性糖含量均值最高分别为62.2%和59.5%, 云南的果糖和葡萄糖含量均值最高, 分别为15.1%和17.7%。绿心猕猴桃为中国产区维生素C含量的显著高于新西兰; 湖南的可溶性固形物含量最高(18.0%), 固酸比均值最高的是湖南(14.5)和重庆(14.4), 可溶性糖含量均值最高的是重庆(58.2%), 但是新西兰的果糖和葡萄糖含量均值最高, 分别为14.2%和16.4%。黄心猕猴桃为新西兰的维生素C、可溶性固形物、固酸比、可溶性糖、果糖、葡萄糖含量均值都是最高(分别为0.89 mg/g、16.7%、14.3、63.6%、15.6%、17.7%), 但是四川(3.73%)与河南(3.61%)的蔗糖含量比新西兰高。结论研究表明我国主产区猕猴桃与新西兰猕猴桃存在品质差异。通过熵权-TOPSIS模型评价结果显示, 红心猕猴桃得分前2名为云南和四川的红阳猕猴桃, 绿心猕猴桃得分最高为陕西的翠香猕猴桃, 新西兰的海沃德猕猴桃排名第4, 黄心猕猴桃得分最高为新西兰的阳光金果猕猴桃, 其次是四川和云南的G3猕猴桃。本研究通过“感官-成分-表型”三维关联模型, 验证了多指标综合评价的有效性, 为构建猕猴桃品质评价体系提供了方法论支撑。
Abstract	Objective To investigate the quality differences between Actinidia chinensis Planch in China’s main production areas and New Zealand Actinidia chinensis Planch, and make a comprehensive evaluation. Methods This study used Actinidia chinensis Planch fruits from the main production areas of China and New Zealand Actinidia chinensis as experimental materials, analyzed the phenotypic traits, nutritional composition and sensory evaluation indexes of Actinidia chinensis Planch fruits, and analyzed and comprehensively evaluated the Actinidia chinensis Planch fruits by using the method of systematic description, entropy weight-technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) method was used to analyze and comprehensively evaluate Actinidia chinensis Planch. Results The quality indexes of Actinidia chinensis Planch fruits from different production areas differed significantly. The soluble solid content of red Actinidia chinensis Planch was the highest in Yunnan and Shaanxi, with 15.9 and 15.5%, respectively, and the lowest total acid content in Sichuan was0.86%, and the mean value of soluble sugar content was the highest in Yunnan and Sichuan, with 62.2% and 59.5%, respectively, Yunnan also had the highest mean fructose and glucose content (15.1% and 17.7%, respectively). The vitamin C content of greenheart Actinidia chinensis Planch was significantly higher than that of New Zealand for the Chinese production area; Hunan had the highest soluble solids content (18.0%), and the highest mean solid-acid ratios were found in Hunan (14.5) and Chongqing (14.4), the highest mean value of soluble sugar content was found in Chongqing (58.2%), but New Zealand had the highest mean values for fructose and glucose content, which were 14.2% and 16.4%, respectively. The yellow heart Actinidia chinensis Planch had the highest mean values of vitamin C, soluble solids, solid-acid ratio, soluble sugars, fructose and glucose content for New Zealand (0.89 mg/g, 16.7%, 14.3, 63.6%, 15.6% and 17.7%, respectively), but the sucrose content of Sichuan (3.73%) and Henan (3.61%) was higher than that of New Zealand. Conclusion The study show that there are quality differences between Actinidia chinensis Planch from China’s main production areas and New Zealand Actinidia chinensis Planch. The entropy weight-TOPSIS model show that the top two scores of red Actinidia chinensis Planch are the Hongyang Actinidia chinensis Planch from Yunnan and Sichuan, the top score of green Actinidia chinensis Planch is the CuiXiang Actinidia chinensis Planch from Shaanxi, and the Hayward Actinidia chinensis Planch from New Zealand ranked the 4th, while the top score of yellow Actinidia chinensis Planch is the Sunshine Golden Fruit Actinidia chinensis Planch from New Zealand, follow by the G3 Actinidia chinensis Planch from Sichuan and Yunnan. This study verify the validity of the multi-indicator evaluation through the three-dimensional correlation model of “sensory-composition-phenotype”, and provid methodological support for the construction of the Actinidia chinensis Planch quality evaluation system.
关键词	熵权-逼近理想解排序法;猕猴桃;综合评价
KeyWord	entropy weight-technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution; Actinidia chinensis Planch; comprehensive evaluation
基金项目
页码	205-217

参考文献
相关文献

[1]姜勤, 黄君成, 宋任华. 猕猴桃果实研究概况
[J]. 广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 1989(S1): 52–59. JIANG Q, HUANG JC, SONG RH. An overview of the research on kiwifruit
[J]. Journal of Guangxi Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 1989(S1): 52–59.
[2]钟彩虹, 黄文俊, 李大卫, 等. 世界猕猴桃产业发展及鲜果贸易动态分析
[J]. 中国果树, 2021(7): 101–108. ZHONG CH, HUANG WJ, LI DW, et al. Dynamic analysis of global kiwifruit industry development and fresh fruit trade
[J]. China Fruits, 2021(7): 101–108.
[3]张计育, 莫正海, 宣继萍, 等. 猕猴桃果肉颜色相关色素代谢研究进展
[J]. 中国农学通报, 2013, 29(13): 77–85. ZHANG JY, MO ZH, XUAN JP, et al. Advance of research on flesh color related pigment metabolism in kiwifruit
[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2013, 29(13): 77–85.
[4]黄诚, 周长春, 李伟. 猕猴桃的营养保健功能与开发利用研究
[J]. 食品科技, 2007(4): 51–55. HUANG C, ZHOU CC, LI W. Nutrition and health care function of kiwi fruit and its processing technique
[J]. Food Science and Technology, 2007(4): 51–55.
[5]戢小梅, 翟敬华, 陈志伟, 等. 猕猴桃的营养成分与保健功能
[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2020, 59(S1): 386–388, 420. JI XM, ZHAI JH, CHEN ZW, et al. The nutritional components and health function of kiwifruit
[J]. Hubei Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 59(S1): 386–388, 420.
[6]孟文俊. 猕猴桃的营养保健价值及开发利用研究
[J]. 现代农村科技, 2019(11): 103–104. MENG WJ. Research on the nutritional and health care value and development and utilization of kiwifruit
[J]. Modern Rural Science & Technology, 2019(11): 103–104.
[7]路喻丹, 刘晓驰, 冯新, 等. 猕猴桃的营养成分?生物活性及其综合利用研究进展
[J]. 东南园艺, 2022, 10(2): 137–144. LU YD, LIU XC, FENG X, et al. Progress in nutritional composition, bioactivity and its comprehensive utilization of kiwifruit
[J]. Southeast Horticulture, 2022, 10(2): 137–144.
[8]黄宏文, 龚俊杰, 王圣梅, 等. 猕猴桃属(Actinidia)植物的遗传多样性
[J]. 生物多样性, 2000(1): 1–12. HUANG HW, GONG JJ, WANG SM, et al. Genetic diversity in the genus Actinidia
[J]. Biodiversity Science, 2000(1): 1–12.
[9]徐小彪, 张秋明. 中国猕猴桃种质资源的研究与利用
[J]. 植物学通报, 2003(6): 648–655. XU XB, ZHANG QM. Researches and utilizations of germplasm resource of Kiwifruit in China
[J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2003(6): 648–655.
[10]钟曼茜, 翟舒嘉, 刘伟, 等. 我国即食猕猴桃产业发展现状?问题与对策
[J]. 中国果树, 2023(2): 122–127. ZHONG MX, ZHAI SJ, LIU W, et al. Current situation, problems and countermeasures of the development of ready-to-eat kiwifruit industry in China
[J]. China Fruits, 2023(2): 122–127.
[11]李大卫, 黄文俊, 钟彩虹. 中国猕猴桃产业现状及“十五五”发展建议
[J]. 果树学报, 2024, 41(11): 2149–2159. LI DW, HUANG WJ, ZHONG CH. Current status of China’s kiwifruit industry and development recommendations for the “15th Five-Year Plan”
[J]. Journal of Fruit Science, 2024, 41(11): 2149–2159.
[12]黄兴成, 杨叶华, 朱华清, 等. 基于消费需求的猕猴桃产业发展对策分析
[J]. 南方园艺, 2022, 33(1): 61–65. HUANG XC, YANG YH, ZHU HQ, et al. Kiwifruit industry development strategy analysis based on consumer demand
[J]. Southern Horticulture, 2022, 33(1): 61–65.
[13]王中炎, 钟彩虹, 李兴华, 等. 国内外主要猕猴桃品种消费者鉴评结果分析
[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2004(4): 13–15. WANG ZY, ZHONG CH, LI XH, et al. Sensory evaluation of main Kiwifruit cultivars by customers
[J]. Hunan Agricultural Sciences, 2004(4): 13–15.
[14]TITELI VS, MICHAILIDIS M, TANOU G, et al. Physiological and metabolic traits linked to kiwifruit quality
[J]. Horticulturae, 2023, 9(8): 915.
[15]GILBERT JM, YOUNG H, BALL RD, et al. Volatile flavor compounds affecting consumer acceptability of kiwifruit
[J]. Journal of Sensory Studies, 1996, 11(3): 247–259.
[16]方金豹, 钟彩虹. 新中国果树科学研究70年—猕猴桃
[J]. 果树学报, 2019, 36(10): 1352–1359. FANG JB, ZHONG CH. Fruit scientific research in New China in the past 70 years: Kiwifruit
[J]. Journal of Fruit Science, 2019, 36(10): 1352–1359.
[17]孙风霞, 朱太富, 苏效兰, 等. 四种猕猴桃果实品质比较与综合评价
[J/OL]. 分子植物育种, 1-16.
[2025-05-11]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/ detail/46.1068.s.20240702.1111.002.html SUN FX, ZHU TF, SU XL, et al. Comparison and comprehensive evaluation of fruit quality of four kinds of kiwifruit
[J/OL]. Molecular Plant Breeding, 1-16.
[2025-05-11]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/ 46.1068.s.20240702.1111.002.html
[18]申素云, 王周倩, 张琦, 等. 36份猕猴桃种质资源的果实品质与感官评价分析
[J]. 植物科学学报, 2023, 41(4): 540–551. SHEN SY, WANG ZQ, ZHANG Q, et al. Analysis of fruit quality and sensory evaluation of 36 kiwifruit (Actinidia) germplasm accessions
[J]. Plant Science Journal, 2023, 41(4): 540–551.
[19]郭琳琳, 庞荣丽, 王瑞萍, 等. 猕猴桃营养品质综合评价
[J]. 果树学报, 2022, 39(10): 1864–1872. GUO LL, PANG RL, WANG RP, et al. Comprehensive trait evaluation for kiwifruit nutritional quality
[J]. Journal of Fruit Science, 2022, 39(10): 1864–1872.
[20]陈明海, 别子兴, 刘学波. ‘海沃德’猕猴桃在西峡的栽培表现
[J]. 北方果树, 2009(5): 46–47. CHEN MH, BIE ZX, LIU XB. Cultivation performance of ‘Hayward’ kiwifruit in Xixia
[J]. Northern Fruits, 2009(5): 46–47.
[21]刘泽银, 许文, 陆斌, 等. 百年蔗红糖营养品质的综合评价分析
[J]. 现代食品科技, 2023, 39(10): 213–224. LIU ZY, XU W, LU B, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of nutritional quality of centennial cane brown sugar
[J]. Modern Food Science and Technology, 2023, 39(10): 213–224.
[22]姜芸, 王军, 滕浩, 等. 基于TOPSIS模型的典型黑土区耕地质量评价及土壤侵蚀耦合协调分析
[J]. 农业工程学报, 2023, 39(12): 82–94. JIANG Y, WANG J, TENG H, et al. Coupling coordination analysis of the quality evaluation of cultivated landand soil erosion in typical black soil areas using TOPSIS method
[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2023, 39(12): 82–94.
[23]陈佳敏, 汪涛, 郭巧生, 等. 基于熵权TOPSIS法对不同产地野菊花醇提物抗氧化性抗炎活性的比较
[J]. 中国中药杂志, 2021, 46(4): 907–914. CHEN JM, WANG T, GUO QS, et al. Comprehensive antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity of alcohol extracts from chrysanthemum indicum in different areas based on entropy weight and TOPSIS methodology
[J]. China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica, 2021, 46(4): 907–914.
[24]郝佳旭, 李元增, 范晓, 等. 基于熵权TOPSIS法综合评价草果质量
[J]. 中国药房, 2022, 33(17): 2087–2092. HAO JX, LI YZ, FAN X, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of the quality of Amomum tsao-ko based on entropy weight TOPSIS method
[J]. China Pharmacy, 2022, 33(17): 2087–2092.
[25]潘玲, 施文婷, 张兰兰, 等. 基于化学模式识别和熵权TOPSIS法分析鱼腥草不同部位的差异
[J]. 化学分析计量, 2023, 32(2): 6–12. PAN L, SHI WT, ZHANG LL, et al. Analysis of the differences of Houttuynia cordata with different parts based on chemical pattern recognition and entropy TOPSIS method
[J]. Chemical Analysis and Meterage, 2023, 32(2): 6–12.
[26]杜丽娟, 黄兴龙, 毕亚楠, 等. 石林人参果的品质差异及综合性评价
[J]. 食品安全质量检测学报, 2023, 14(23): 107–114. DU LJ, HUANG XL, BI YN, et al. Quality discrepancy and comprehensive evaluation of solanum muricatum Aiton
[J]. Journal of Food Safety & Quality, 2023, 14(23): 107–114.
[27]XIE Y, XIA H, LIANG D, et al. Differences of ascorbic acid synthesis in different genotype of red-fleshed kiwifruits
[J]. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2018, 392: 052021.
[28]NISHIO S, HAYASHI T, SHIRASAWA K, et al. Genome-wide association study of individual sugar content in fruit of Japanese pear (Pyrus spp.)
[J]. BMC Plant Biology, 2021,21: 378.
[29]金方伦, 岳宣, 黎明, 等. 后熟方法对猕猴桃果实后熟期品质的影响
[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2016, 55(14): 3712?3715. JIN FL, YUE X, LI M, et al. Effect of after-ripening period on kiwi fruit quality in different ripe methods
[J]. Hubei Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 55(14): 3712–3715.
[30]刘玉兰, 郑有飞, 张晓煜, 等. 光质和光强对酿酒葡萄光合速率及糖分积累的影响
[J]. 中国农业气象, 2006, 27(4): 286–288, 292. LIU YL, ZHENG YF, ZHANG XY, et al. A study on impacts of light conditions on net photosynthesis and sugar accumulation of wine grape
[J]. Chinese Journal of Agrometeorology, 2006, 27(4): 286–288, 292.
[31]刘金铜, 蔡虹, 高福存. 丘陵山地元帅系苹果品质与气候条件关系初探
[J]. 中国农业气象, 1998(2): 27–30, 43. LIU JT, CAI H, GAO FC. The quality of delicious apple and climatic conditionsin taihang mountain area
[J]. Chinese Journal of Agrometeorology, 1998(2): 27–30, 43.
[32]LUCA MERCENARO, ANA-FERNANDES-DE OLIVEIRA, MASSIMILIANO COCCO, et al. Yield and grape quality of three red grapevine cultivars (Vitis vinifera L.) in relation to altimetry
[J]. BIO Web of Conferences, 2019, 13: 02002.
[33]陈贵廷. 猕猴桃的生物活性研究进展
[J]. 食品安全导刊, 2022(3): 159–161. CHEN GT. Advances in studies on biological activity of kiwifruit
[J]. China Food Safety Magazine, 2022(3): 159–161.
[34]陈璐, 王小玲, 毛积鹏, 等. 不同黄肉猕猴桃品种果实发育动态变化及品质综合评价
[J]. 经济林研究, 2024, 42(1): 220–231. CHEN L, WANG XL, MAO JP, et al. Dynamic changes of fruit development and comprehensive quality evaluation of different yellow-flesh kiwifruit cultivars
[J]. Non-wood Forest Research, 2024, 42(1): 220–231.
[35]ZHANG HX, ZHAO QY, LAN T, et al. Comparative analysis of physicochemical characteristics, nutritional and functional components and antioxidant capacity of fifteen kiwifruit (Actinidia) cultivars—comparative analysis of fifteen kiwifruit (Actinidia) cultivars
[J]. Foods, 2020, 9: 1267.
[36]冯勇. 基于主成分和聚类分析的不同品种猕猴桃品质指标综合评价
[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2021, 49(22): 180–185. FENG Y. Comprehensive evaluation of quality indices of different kiwifruit varieties based on principal component and cluster analysis
[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 49(22): 180–185.
[37]刘肖冰. 基于主成分分析和聚类分析不同品种猕猴桃品质评价
[J]. 现代食品科技, 2024, 40(10): 284–292. LIU XB. Quality evaluation of different varieties of kiwifruit based on principal components analysis and cluster analysis
[J]. Modern Food Science and Technology, 2024, 40(10): 284–292.
[38]李跃红, 冉茂乾, 徐孟怀, 等. 不同品种猕猴桃果实品质比较与综合评价
[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2020, 46(23): 162–168. LI YH, RAN MQ, XU MH, et al. Comparison and comprehensive evaluation of fruit quality of different varieties of kiwifruit
[J]. Food and Fermentation Industries, 2020, 46(23): 162–168.
[39]郭秀兰, 陈易珊, 许淳, 等. 红心果肉猕猴桃的营养评价
[J]. 食品科技, 2014, 39(11): 71–73. GUO XL, CHEN YS, XU C, et al. Nutritional evaluation of kiwifruit with red-fleshed pulp
[J]. Food Science and Technology, 2014, 39(11): 71–73.

引用本文

叶艳萍, 李凯茜, 毕亚楠, 林涛, 陈大明, 杜丽娟*. 基于熵权-逼近理想解排序法综合评价我国主产区猕猴桃的品质 [J]. 食品安全质量检测学报. 2025; 16; (12). 205 - 217.

文献评论

相关学者

相关机构