
浙江农业科学 ›› 2026, Vol. 67 ›› Issue (6): 1474-1479.DOI: 10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20260285
收稿日期:2026-04-14
出版日期:2026-06-11
发布日期:2026-06-12
通讯作者:
郭勤卫
作者简介:郭勤卫,E-mail:kongxinzhu0530@163.com。基金资助:
ZHOU Xiaoyan1(
), GUO Qinwei1(
), XU Lushan2, WANG Jiajun1
Received:2026-04-14
Online:2026-06-11
Published:2026-06-12
Contact:
GUO Qinwei
摘要:
为探究不同茶树品种对青柑茶风味品质的影响,以衢州地区鸠坑种、龙井43、福鼎大白及乌牛早4个主栽茶树品种为原料制备青柑茶,结合感官与生化分析,比较其品质差异。结果表明,鸠坑种综合品质最优,感官评分92.2分,香气协调持久、滋味醇厚回甘,水浸出物含量(35.64%)和游离氨基酸含量(4.05%)均最高,酯型与非酯型儿茶素比值适中,酚氨比适宜,奠定了其优异品质的物质基础。研究揭示了茶树品种对青柑茶风味品质形成的关键作用,为青柑茶优质原料的选择提供了理论依据。
中图分类号:
周小燕, 郭勤卫, 徐璐珊, 王佳俊. 基于不同茶树品种原料的青柑茶品质分析[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2026, 67(6): 1474-1479.
ZHOU Xiaoyan, GUO Qinwei, XU Lushan, WANG Jiajun. Quality analysis of Qinggan tea from different tea cultivars[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2026, 67(6): 1474-1479.
| 样品 | 外形 | 汤色 | 香气 | 滋味 | 接受度 | 总分 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 评语 | 评分 | 评语 | 评分 | 评语 | 评分 | 评语 | 评分 | 评语 | 评分 | ||
| FD | 茶叶不易漏,表面无裂纹 | 90.3 | 橙黄,较亮 | 89.2 | 甜香,橘香,协调,较持久 | 90.1 | 醇厚浓郁,无苦味 | 90.4 | 口感良好,可接受 | 89.8 | 90.0 |
| JK | 茶叶不易漏,表面无裂纹 | 90.9 | 橙黄,明亮 | 91.4 | 甜香,橘香,协调,持香久 | 92.5 | 醇厚浓郁,无苦味,回甘好 | 93.1 | 口感好,可接受 | 91.2 | 92.2 |
| LJ | 茶叶不易漏,表面无裂纹 | 89.7 | 橙黄,较亮 | 89.4 | 甜香,橘香,协调,持香久 | 91.4 | 醇厚浓郁,无苦,回甘较好 | 91.4 | 口感好,可接受 | 90.8 | 90.9 |
| WNZ | 茶叶不易漏,表面无裂纹 | 89.8 | 橙黄,明亮 | 90.5 | 甜香,橘香,较协调,较持久 | 89.2 | 醇厚,无苦味,回味一般 | 88.8 | 口感良好,可接受 | 89.2 | 89.3 |
表1 不同茶树品种原料制备的青柑茶感官审评结果
Table 1 Sensory evaluation results of Qinggan tea from different tea cultivars
| 样品 | 外形 | 汤色 | 香气 | 滋味 | 接受度 | 总分 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 评语 | 评分 | 评语 | 评分 | 评语 | 评分 | 评语 | 评分 | 评语 | 评分 | ||
| FD | 茶叶不易漏,表面无裂纹 | 90.3 | 橙黄,较亮 | 89.2 | 甜香,橘香,协调,较持久 | 90.1 | 醇厚浓郁,无苦味 | 90.4 | 口感良好,可接受 | 89.8 | 90.0 |
| JK | 茶叶不易漏,表面无裂纹 | 90.9 | 橙黄,明亮 | 91.4 | 甜香,橘香,协调,持香久 | 92.5 | 醇厚浓郁,无苦味,回甘好 | 93.1 | 口感好,可接受 | 91.2 | 92.2 |
| LJ | 茶叶不易漏,表面无裂纹 | 89.7 | 橙黄,较亮 | 89.4 | 甜香,橘香,协调,持香久 | 91.4 | 醇厚浓郁,无苦,回甘较好 | 91.4 | 口感好,可接受 | 90.8 | 90.9 |
| WNZ | 茶叶不易漏,表面无裂纹 | 89.8 | 橙黄,明亮 | 90.5 | 甜香,橘香,较协调,较持久 | 89.2 | 醇厚,无苦味,回味一般 | 88.8 | 口感良好,可接受 | 89.2 | 89.3 |
| 样品 | 含水量 | 水浸出物含量 |
|---|---|---|
| FD | 9.70±0.30 a | 33.91±0.37 b |
| JK | 8.77±0.20 b | 35.64±0.69 a |
| LJ | 8.85±0.06 b | 30.87±0.57 d |
| WNZ | 8.36±0.20 c | 31.91±0.34 c |
表2 不同茶树品种原料制备的青柑茶含水量和水浸出物含量 (%)
Table 2 Moisture content and water extract content of Qinggan tea from different tea cultivars
| 样品 | 含水量 | 水浸出物含量 |
|---|---|---|
| FD | 9.70±0.30 a | 33.91±0.37 b |
| JK | 8.77±0.20 b | 35.64±0.69 a |
| LJ | 8.85±0.06 b | 30.87±0.57 d |
| WNZ | 8.36±0.20 c | 31.91±0.34 c |
图1 不同茶树品种原料制备的青柑茶茶多酚和游离氨基酸含量柱上无相同小写字母表示不同样品间差异显著(p<0.05),图2~4同。
Fig.1 Tea polyphenols and free amino acid content of Qinggan tea from different tea cultivars
| 样品 | 酯型儿茶素 | 非酯型儿茶素 | 酯型/非酯型 | 儿茶素总量 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CG | ECG | GCG | EGCG | 总量 | C | EC | GC | EGC | 总量 | |||
| FD | 105.78±1.01 d | 2 783.61±21.39 b | 381.42±3.39 a | 861.55±6.03 b | 4 132.35±24.42 b | 128.05±0.91 b | 571.29±4.99 b | 55.42±1.33 b | 264.15±1.66 b | 1 018.90±6.17 b | 4.06 | 5 151.25±30.31 b |
| JK | 132.31±1.18 c | 4 992.14±60.50 a | 260.33±2.01 c | 1 272.15±13.72 a | 6 656.93±59.89 a | 159.59±1.37 a | 917.57±9.64 a | 98.04±1.99 a | 340.26±11.46 a | 1 515.46±1.22 a | 4.39 | 8 172.38±60.50 a |
| LJ | 140.42±0.81 b | 2 063.28±16.43 c | 311.70±1.01 b | 461.02±4.76 c | 2 976.42±16.65 c | 97.44±1.38 c | 370.33±3.23 c | 35.25±1.31 d | 80.62±1.65 c | 583.63±4.09 c | 5.10 | 3 560.05±18.48 c |
| WNZ | 204.33±1.10 a | 1 915.36±18.08 d | 120.99±1.15 d | 474.56±3.03 c | 2 715.23±20.59 d | 91.01±0.92 d | 339.25±3.27 d | 42.33±1.33 c | 32.65±0.96 d | 505.25±5.37 d | 5.37 | 3 220.48±19.08 d |
表3 不同茶树品种原料制备的青柑茶儿茶素组分及其含量 (μg·g-1)
Table 3 Components and contents of catechins in Qinggan tea from different tea cultivars
| 样品 | 酯型儿茶素 | 非酯型儿茶素 | 酯型/非酯型 | 儿茶素总量 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CG | ECG | GCG | EGCG | 总量 | C | EC | GC | EGC | 总量 | |||
| FD | 105.78±1.01 d | 2 783.61±21.39 b | 381.42±3.39 a | 861.55±6.03 b | 4 132.35±24.42 b | 128.05±0.91 b | 571.29±4.99 b | 55.42±1.33 b | 264.15±1.66 b | 1 018.90±6.17 b | 4.06 | 5 151.25±30.31 b |
| JK | 132.31±1.18 c | 4 992.14±60.50 a | 260.33±2.01 c | 1 272.15±13.72 a | 6 656.93±59.89 a | 159.59±1.37 a | 917.57±9.64 a | 98.04±1.99 a | 340.26±11.46 a | 1 515.46±1.22 a | 4.39 | 8 172.38±60.50 a |
| LJ | 140.42±0.81 b | 2 063.28±16.43 c | 311.70±1.01 b | 461.02±4.76 c | 2 976.42±16.65 c | 97.44±1.38 c | 370.33±3.23 c | 35.25±1.31 d | 80.62±1.65 c | 583.63±4.09 c | 5.10 | 3 560.05±18.48 c |
| WNZ | 204.33±1.10 a | 1 915.36±18.08 d | 120.99±1.15 d | 474.56±3.03 c | 2 715.23±20.59 d | 91.01±0.92 d | 339.25±3.27 d | 42.33±1.33 c | 32.65±0.96 d | 505.25±5.37 d | 5.37 | 3 220.48±19.08 d |
| [1] | DENG X Y, HE S Q, HAN Y X,et al. Metabolites profiling reveals the dynamic changes of non-volatiles in Pu-erh during Ganpu tea processing[J]. Food Chemistry:X,2023,19:100774. |
| [2] | ZHENG Y Y, ZENG X, CHEN T T,et al. Chemical profile,antioxidative,and gut microbiota modulatory properties of Ganpu tea:a derivative of Pu-erh tea[J]. Nutrients,2020,12(1):224. |
| [3] | 尹昌婷,韩宝瑜,方晓国,等.基于香气成分分析的淳安小青柑红茶原料茶筛选与适制性研究[J/OL].茶叶通讯,2025-11-12. . |
| YIN C T, HAN B Y, FANG X G,et al. Raw tea screening and adaptive research of Chun'an Xiaoqinggan black tea based on analysis of aroma compounds[J]. Journal of Tea Communication,2025-11-12. . | |
| [4] | CHI E Z, WANG L, PAN J J,et al. Comparison of polysaccharides isolated from Ganpu tea of different storage ages:chemical,structural,and hypoglycemic properties[J]. Journal of Food Science,2025,90(2):e70046. |
| [5] | ZHOU J F, ZHANG X W, LIU W Y,et al. Effect of different drying methods on color difference,microorganisms and volatile metabolites profiles of Ganpu tea[J]. Food Bioscience,2023,56:103314. |
| [6] | 李想,潘兆平,付复华,等. 超声波加速陈化对湘柑茶品质的影响[J]. 中国食品学报,2023,23(6):175-186. |
| LI X, PAN Z P, FU F H,et al. Effect of ultrasonic accelerated aging on the quality of Xianggan tea[J]. Journal of Chinese Institute of Food Science and Technology,2023,23(6):175-186. | |
| [7] | 李想. 加速陈化和贮藏条件对“湘柑茶”品质影响的研究[D]. 长沙:湖南大学,2022. |
| LI X. Effect of accelerating aging and storage conditions on the quality of Xianggan tea[D]. Changsha:Hunan University,2022. | |
| [8] | 莫怀鸿,陆泰良,徐小凡,等. 不同茶类加工小青柑茶品质风味差异分析[J]. 南方园艺,2023,34(2):64-66. |
| MO H H, LU T L, XU X F,et al. Analysis on quality and flavor differences between Xiaoqinggan-tea processed with different kinds of tea[J]. Southern Horticulture,2023,34(2):64-66. | |
| [9] | 杨明府,毛莉华,杜梦可,等. 衢州市茶产业发展现状与对策探究[J]. 农业科技通讯,2025(4):35-37. |
| YANG M F, MAO L H, DU M K,et al. Present situation and countermeasures of tea industry development in Quzhou City[J]. Bulletin of Agricultural Science and Technology,2025(4):35-37. | |
| [10] | 商业部茶叶畜产局,商业部杭州茶叶加工研究所. 茶叶品质理化分析[M]. 上海:上海科学技术出版社,1989. |
| [11] | 郑琳,刘盼盼,金孝芳,等. 不同茶树品种(系)黄大茶的品质分析[J]. 食品工业科技,2022,43(21):310-318. |
| ZHENG L, LIU P P, JIN X F,et al. Quality analysis of large-leaf yellow tea made from different tea cultivars(strains)[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry,2022,43(21):310-318. | |
| [12] | ZHOU J F, ZHANG X W, LIU W Y,et al. Widely targeted metabolomics analysis of the main bioactive compounds of Ganpu tea processing through different drying methods[J]. LWT,2023,189:115501. |
| [13] | 万宇慷,邓欣奕,陈泽雅,等. 不同贮藏年份柑普茶中普洱茶的主要品质成分分析[J]. 茶叶学报,2024,65(6):10-18. |
| WAN Y K, DENG X Y, CHEN Z Y,et al. Quality variations on Pu-erh tea in Ganpu tea stored for different lengths of time[J]. Acta Tea Sinica,2024,65(6):10-18. | |
| [14] | 彭兴兴,吴颖茹,彭飞飞,等. 柑普茶加工工艺及其功能特性研究进展[J]. 中国茶叶,2024,46(3):21-25. |
| PENG X X, WU Y R, PENG F F,et al. Research progress on processing technology and functional characteristics of Ganpu tea[J]. China Tea,2024,46(3):21-25. | |
| [15] | QI H T, DING S H, PAN Z P,et al. Characteristic volatile fingerprints and odor activity values in different citrus-tea by HS-GC-IMS and HS-SPME-GC-MS[J]. Molecules,2020,25(24):6027. |
| [16] | 戚贺亭,潘兆平,李想,等. 金盆柚不同成熟度对湘柑茶品质的影响[J]. 食品与发酵工业,2021,47(16):103-116. |
| QI H T, PAN Z P, LI X,et al. Effect of maturity of Citrus junos Sieb. ex Tanaka Yuzu on the quality of Xianggan tea[J]. Food and Fermentation Industries,2021,47(16):103-116. | |
| [17] | 崔宏春,师大亮,叶敏,等. 发酵程度对九曲红梅茶风味品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学,2026,67(2):463-469. |
| CUI H C, SHI D L, YE M,et al. Effect of fermentation degree on flavor quality of Jiuquhongmei tea[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences,2026,67(2):463-469. | |
| [18] | 蔡佳梓,丁敏,何新,等. 新会柑普茶成分分析[J]. 广州化工,2016,44(18):132-136. |
| CAI J Z, DING M, HE X,et al. Composition analysis of Xinhui Ganpu tea[J]. Guangzhou Chemical Industry,2016,44(18):132-136. | |
| [19] | 郑敏. 柑普茶主要化学成分分析及制备工艺研究[D]. 武汉:华中农业大学,2017. |
| ZHENG M. Analysis of major chemical components and study of preparation process of Ganpu tea[D]. Wuhan:Huazhong Agricultural University,2017. | |
| [20] | 严蒿峰,方林官,楼舒琳,等. 恒温远红外提香技术在夏秋茶叶资源风味品质提升上的应用[J]. 浙江农业科学,2025,66(2):463-466. |
| YAN H F, FANG L G, LOU S L,et al. Application of constant temperature far-infrared aroma extraction technology in improving flavor quality of tea resources in summer and autumn[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences,2025,66(2):463-466. | |
| [21] | 龚自明,刘盼盼,郑鹏程,等. 长江中下游产区红茶品质分析[J]. 食品工业科技,2018,39(23):247-254. |
| GONG Z M, LIU P P, ZHENG P C,et al. Analysis of quality components in black tea from middle and lower reaches of Yangtze River[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry,2018,39(23):247-254. | |
| [22] | 师大亮,敖存,腾瑞敏,等. 浙江主栽品种加工黄茶的适制性研究[J]. 浙江农业科学,2024,65(12):3021-3024. |
| SHI D L, AO C, TENG R M,et al. Study on suitability of processing yellow tea of main cultivars in Zhejiang Province[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences,2024,65(12):3021-3024. | |
| [23] | GAO C X, HUANG Y, LI J,et al. Relationship between the grade and the characteristic flavor of PCT [J]. Foods,2022,11(18):2815. |
| [24] | 王海利,杨秀芳,孔俊豪,等. 不同品种名优绿茶理化品质及挥发性成分分析[J]. 食品工业科技,2019,40(18):217-223. |
| WANG H L, YANG X F, KONG J H,et al. Analysis of physical and chemical indicators and aroma components of different green tea[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry,2019,40(18):217-223. | |
| [25] | 李家锋,李国萍,欧阳建,等. 盈江大理种芽孢茶感官品质及滋味化学成分分析[J]. 食品工业科技,2023,44(16):339-347. |
| LI J F, LI G P, OUYANG J,et al. Analysis on the sensory quality and taste's chemical composition of spore tea of Camellia taliensis Yingjiang[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry,2023,44(16):339-347. |
| [1] | 陈哲, 徐超, 李小婷, 黄雅丽, 朱作艺, 戴芬. 植物生长调节剂对阳光玫瑰葡萄果实风味品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2025, 66(4): 952-957. |
| [2] | 严蒿峰, 方林官, 楼舒琳, 黄海涛. 恒温远红外提香技术在夏秋茶叶资源风味品质提升上的应用[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2025, 66(2): 463-466. |
| [3] | 邱晓莹. 我国茶树品种登记现状及优质种质资源主要特征[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2024, 65(5): 1215-1223. |
| [4] | 师大亮, 敖存, 腾瑞敏, 崔宏春, 赵芸, 祝凌平. 浙江主栽品种加工黄茶的适制性研究[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2024, 65(12): 3021-3024. |
| [5] | 唐燕, 曾光辉, 郜爱玲, 刘炜, 黄奇, 康华靖. 泰顺3个主栽茶树品种的黄茶适制性研究[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2023, 64(9): 2266-2269. |
| [6] | 周杨浦甲, 刘国豪, 夏修新, 吴双, 倪穗. 茶树新品种戚家美铭主要生化成分及与主栽品种的比较研究[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2023, 64(10): 2525-2532. |
| [7] | 阮美颖, 高成安, 方明雅, 姚祝平, 叶青静, 万红建, 周国治, 王荣青, 程远. 不同节位辣椒品质成分比较分析[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2022, 63(5): 1048-1052. |
| [8] | 敖存, 黄海涛, 毛宇骁, 邵宗清, 张乐. 鸠16加工龙井茶的工艺[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2022, 63(2): 334-337. |
| [9] | 汪辉. 茶树品种优化配置在径山茶生产中的应用[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2021, 62(8): 1528-1529. |
| [10] | 娄艳华, 刘瑜, 何卫中, 吉庆勇, 郑生宏. 76份浙江丽水茶树种质资源的生化成分多样性分析[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2020, 61(10): 1990-1993. |
| [11] | 吴敏, 刘金根, 王荣青, 李志邈, 丁桔, 姚祝平, 叶青静, 程远, 万红建, 杨悦俭, 阮美颖, 周国治. 樱桃番茄浙樱粉1号的特征特性及冬春茬栽培技术[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2019, 60(5): 718-719. |
| [12] | 黄海涛, 敖存, 郭敏明, 余继忠, 毛宇骁, 张伟. 花香与清香绿茶的香气组分及品种相关性分析[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2018, 59(5): 738-741. |
| [13] | 鲁忠富, 吴新义, 吴晓花, 汪颖, 汪宝根, 徐沛, 李国景. 不同肥料施用对瓠瓜风味品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2018, 59(10): 1776-1778. |
| [14] | 俞燎远, 邵宗清, 张育青, 王华建, 李继, 余淑芳. 基于茶树品种筛选的甜香型红茶适制性研究[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2017, 58(11): 2034-2038. |
| [15] | 郭敏明, 余继忠, 师大亮, 敖存. 适制红茶茶树品种的筛选[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2017, 58(1): 117-119. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||