Evaluation of Tobacco Mixing Uniformity Based on Projection Pursuit

Article Preview

Abstract:

A new comprehensive evaluation method of tobacco mixing uniformity was presented in this paper. In this method, projection pursuit model was used to select evaluation index and determine the index weights. Seven chemical compositions which had a major impact on the overall evaluation, such as total volatile acid, total volatile bases, PH, polyphenol, protein, total nitrogen and chlorine were sampled repetitiously and calculated the average and coefficient of variance. Tobacco mixing uniformity was evaluated by the score according to coefficient of variance. Comprehensive evaluation of five batches of tobacco was carried out and the results were consistent with the traditional. This method was easy to get basic data and evaluation results fitted the actual. It was a simple and practical evaluation method of mixing uniformity.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Info:

Periodical:

Pages:

128-133

Citation:

Online since:

December 2012

Export:

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Permissions PLS:

Сopyright:

© 2013 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

[1] SHI Yuewei, WANG Zhihong, WANG Yi, REN Xueliang, Analysis on the Main Chemical Components of Tobacco New Varieties, Journal of Anhui Agriculture Science, 36(25): 10958-10959, (2008).

Google Scholar

[2] WANG Yi, LI Shengqun, HU Lizhong, Study on Evaluation of Tobacco Mixing Uniformity, Report Set of 2006 Tobacco Technology Conference of China Tobacco Society: 77-79, (2006).

Google Scholar

[3] DU Wen, TAN Xin1iang, YI Jianhua, SU Qingde, Evaluation of Leaf Tobacco Quality using Chemical Composition Data, Journal of Chinese Tobacco, 13(3): 25-31, (2007).

Google Scholar

[4] FU Qiang, ZHAO Xiaoyong. Theory and Application of Projection Pursuit Model [M]. Science Press, 2006, 6. XU Fei, WANG Ke, LIU Zaobao. Attribute Interval Recognition Model Based on Projection Pursuit Weight for Evaluation of Stability of Surrounding Rock, Rock and Soil Mechanics, 31(8): 2587-2591, (2010).

DOI: 10.1201/b11438-107

Google Scholar