| Literature DB >> 26966460 |
Yuanshuang Wu1, Shidong Lv2, Chen Wang1, Xuemei Gao1, Jiangbing Li1, Qingxiong Meng1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Modern instrumental analysis technology can provide various chemical data and information on tea samples. Unfortunately, it remains difficult to extract the useful information. We describe the use of chemical fingerprint similarities, combined with principal component and cluster analyses, to distinguish and recognize Pu-erh green teas, which from two tea mountains, Wuliang and Jingmai, in the Pu-erh district of Yunnan province. The volatile components of all 20 Pu-erh green teas (10 Wuliang and 10 Jingmai teas) were extracted and identified by headspace solid-phase micro extraction (HS-SPME) combined with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS).Entities:
Keywords: Chemical fingerprint similarity; Cluster analysis; Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry; Principal component analysis; Pu-erh green tea
Year: 2016 PMID: 26966460 PMCID: PMC4785618 DOI: 10.1186/s13065-016-0159-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chem Cent J ISSN: 1752-153X Impact factor: 4.215
Fig. 1The overlapping GC-MS fingerprint plots of 20 Pu-erh green tea samples
Evaluation of the similarity of 20 Pu-erh green tea samples using their common model of chromatographic fingerprints
| Sample no. | Correlation coefficient | Congruence coefficient (R) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Average | Median | Average | |
| J1 | 0.6347 | 0.6741 | 0.7254 | 0.7525 |
| J2 | 0.7110 | 0.7465 | 0.7743 | 0.8009 |
| J3 | 0.5918 | 0.6542 | 0.6947 | 0.7382 |
| J4 | 0.7544 | 0.7076 | 0.8278 | 0.7912 |
| J5 | 0.6534 | 0.7082 | 0.7149 | 0.7580 |
| J6 | 0.6028 | 0.6284 | 0.6920 | 0.7096 |
| J7 | 0.5844 | 0.6141 | 0.6893 | 0.7083 |
| J8 | 0.5931 | 0.6554 | 0.6880 | 0.7329 |
| I9 | 0.5614 | 0.6502 | 0.6453 | 0.7133 |
| J10 | 0.6515 | 0.6715 | 0.7293 | 0.7433 |
| W1 | 0.6770 | 0.7901 | 0.7344 | 0.8230 |
| W2 | 0.7012 | 0.7299 | 0.7553 | 0.7782 |
| W3 | 0.8195 | 0.8075 | 0.8596 | 0.8510 |
| W4 | 0.7935 | 0.7840 | 0.8237 | 0.8185 |
| W5 | 0.7292 | 0.8262 | 0.7703 | 0.8480 |
| W6 | 0.7086 | 0.8081 | 0.7580 | 0.8366 |
| W7 | 0.7788 | 0.7947 | 0.8291 | 0.8411 |
| W8 | 0.7489 | 0.7336 | 0.7973 | 0.7863 |
| W9 | 0.6789 | 0.6942 | 0.7399 | 0.7518 |
| W10 | 0.6877 | 0.7878 | 0.7385 | 0.8180 |
Evaluation of the similarity of 20 Pu-erh green tea samples using Jingmai Pu-erh green tea common model of chromatographic fingerprints
| Sample no. | Correlation coefficient | Congruence coefficient (R) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Average | Median | Average | |
| J1 | 0.7959 | 0.8705 | 0.8391 | 0.8985 |
| J2 | 0.9059 | 0.9067 | 0.9237 | 0.9241 |
| J3 | 0.7500 | 0.8086 | 0.8030 | 0.8504 |
| J4 | 0.8181 | 0.8263 | 0.8606 | 0.8694 |
| J5 | 0.8853 | 0.8708 | 0.9009 | 0.8878 |
| J6 | 0.7766 | 0.7968 | 0.8187 | 0.8354 |
| J7 | 0.7547 | 0.8009 | 0.7821 | 0.8435 |
| J8 | 0.8290 | 0.8853 | 0.8617 | 0.9066 |
| I9 | 0.8158 | 0.8710 | 0.8428 | 0.8869 |
| J10 | 0.9575 | 0.9207 | 0.9649 | 0.9349 |
| W1 | 0.2594 | 0.3101 | 0.4008 | 0.4469 |
| W2 | 0.2853 | 0.3898 | 0.4139 | 0.5036 |
| W3 | 0.2314 | 0.3259 | 0.3785 | 0.4598 |
| W4 | 0.3382 | 0.3564 | 0.4799 | 0.4998 |
| W5 | 0.2766 | 0.3615 | 0.3907 | 0.4654 |
| W6 | 0.2620 | 0.2875 | 0.3913 | 0.4169 |
| W7 | 0.2403 | 0.2565 | 0.3835 | 0.4020 |
| W8 | 0.2314 | 0.2528 | 0.3681 | 0.3906 |
| W9 | 0.2146 | 0.2619 | 0.3366 | 0.3804 |
| W10 | 0.2570 | 0.2743 | 0.3902 | 0.4092 |
Evaluation of the similarity of 20 Pu-erh green tea samples using Wuliang Pu-erh green tea common model of chromatographic fingerprints
| Sample no. | Correlation coefficient | Congruence coefficient (R) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Average | Median | Average | |
| W1 | 0.7944 | 0.8597 | 0.7527 | 0.8814 |
| W2 | 0.8395 | 0.8341 | 0.8651 | 0.8610 |
| W3 | 0.9633 | 0.9137 | 0.9698 | 0.9305 |
| W4 | 0.9663 | 0.9093 | 0.9708 | 0.9228 |
| W5 | 0.7876 | 0.8912 | 0.8189 | 0.9058 |
| W6 | 0.7590 | 0.8977 | 0.7966 | 0.9128 |
| W7 | 0.9624 | 0.9274 | 0.9691 | 0.9415 |
| W8 | 0.9323 | 0.8751 | 0.9439 | 0.8970 |
| W9 | 0.8512 | 0.8326 | 0.8753 | 0.8602 |
| W10 | 0.7523 | 0.8681 | 0.7731 | 0.8873 |
| J1 | 0.2594 | 0.3101 | 0.4008 | 0.4469 |
| J2 | 0.2853 | 0.3898 | 0.4139 | 0.5036 |
| J3 | 0.2314 | 0.3259 | 0.3785 | 0.4598 |
| J4 | 0.3382 | 0.3564 | 0.4799 | 0.4998 |
| J5 | 0.2766 | 0.3615 | 0.3907 | 0.4654 |
| J6 | 0.2620 | 0.2875 | 0.3913 | 0.4169 |
| J7 | 0.2403 | 0.2565 | 0.3835 | 0.4020 |
| J8 | 0.2314 | 0.2528 | 0.3681 | 0.3906 |
| J9 | 0.2146 | 0.2619 | 0.3366 | 0.3804 |
| J10 | 0.2570 | 0.2743 | 0.3902 | 0.4092 |
Fig. 2The results of the PCA-based chromatographic fingerprints of Jingmai and Wuliang Pu-erh green teas
Volatile compounds and their relative contents of Jingmai and Wuliang Pu-erh green tea
| No | RIa | Compoundb | Relative percentage contentc | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jingmai mountain (n = 10) | Wuliang mountain (n = 10) | |||
| 1 | 957 | Benzaldehyde | 0.11 ± 0.10a | 0.10 ± 0.07a |
| 2 | 979 | 1-Octen-3-ol | 0.44 ± 0.35a | 0.65 ± 0.44a |
| 3 | 985 | 6-Methyl-5-heptene-2-one | 0.08 ± 0.12a | 0.14 ± 0.09a |
| 4 | 989 | 2-Pentyl-furan | 0.52 ± 0.23a | 0.63 ± 0.10a |
| 5 | 997 | α-Phellandrene | 0.12 ± 0.12a | 0.06 ± 0.08a |
| 6 | 1011 | α-Terpinene | 0.12 ± 0.09a | 0.06 ± 0.06a |
| 7 | 1026 | D-Limonene | 1.12 ± 0.47a | 0.64 ± 0.22b |
| 8 | 1034 | Benzyl alcohol | 0.16 ± 0.11a | 0.21 ± 0.13a |
| 9 | 1037 | (E)-3,7-Dimethyl-1,3,6-octatriene | 0.11 ± 0.10a | 0.20 ± 0.05b |
| 10 | 1042 | Phenyl acetaldehyde | 0.11 ± 0.07a | 0.21 ± 0.18b |
| 11 | 1048 | Ocimene | 0.32 ± 0.09a | 0.42 ± 0.13a |
| 12 | 1056 | γ-Terpinene | 0.27 ± 0.11a | 0.21 ± 0.06a |
| 13 | 1068 | (E)-2-Octen-1-ol | 0.23 ± 0.23a | 0.38 ± 0.32a |
| 14 | 1072 | Linalool oxide I | 0.75 ± 0.25a | 1.75 ± 0.29b |
| 15 | 1087 | Linalool oxide II | 2.24 ± 0.80a | 3.21 ± 0.96b |
| 16 | 1098 | Linalool | 7.86 ± 2.44a | 20.56 ± 3.47a |
| 17 | 1100 | Hotrienol | 1.50 ± 1.30a | 1.32 ± 0.48a |
| 18 | 1110 | Phenylethyl alcohol | 0.07 ± 0.10a | 0.65 ± 0.83b |
| 19 | 1175 | Linalool oxide IV | 0.57 ± 0.23a | 1.62 ± 0.32b |
| 20 | 1178 | Naphthalene | 0.23 ± 0.14a | 0.23 ± 0.17a |
| 21 | 1188 | α-Terpineol | 2.43 ± 0.84a | 2.16 ± 0.53a |
| 22 | 1190 | Methyl salicylate | 0.99 ± 1.19a | 2.91 ± 0.76a |
| 23 | 1196 | Safranal | 0.29 ± 0.07a | 0.35 ± 0.10a |
| 24 | 1218 | β-Cyclocitral | 0.59 ± 0.20a | 0.66 ± 0.24a |
| 25 | 1228 | Nerol | 0.46 ± 0.15a | 0.77 ± 0.17b |
| 26 | 1256 | Geraniol | 1.58 ± 0.59a | 5.41 ± 1.65b |
| 27 | 1289 | Indole | 0.13 ± 0.22a | 0.53 ± 0.34b |
| 28 | 1300 | Tridecane | 0.17 ± 0.07a | 0.18 ± 0.08a |
| 29 | 1302 | 1-Methyl-naphthalene | 0.40 ± 0.10a | 0.18 ± 0.13b |
| 30 | 1316 | 1,2,3-Trimethoxybenzene | 0.56 ± 0.41a | 0.44 ± 0.25a |
| 31 | 1351 | 2,6-Dimethoxyphenol | 0.15 ± 0.22a | 0.32 ± 0.20a |
| 32 | 1397 | cis-Jasmone | 0.86 ± 0.61a | 1.30 ± 0.56a |
| 33 | 1400 | Tetradecane | 1.48 ± 0.31a | 0.64 ± 0.09b |
| 34 | 1417 | β-Caryophyllene | 1.00 ± 1.57a | 0.39 ± 0.22a |
| 35 | 1428 | α-Ionone | 1.22 ± 0.29a | 0.77 ± 0.18b |
| 36 | 1455 | Geranyl acetone | 2.08 ± 0.42a | 1.96 ± 0.46a |
| 37 | 1487 | β-Ionone | 5.28 ± 1.45a | 3.44 ± 0.64b |
| 38 | 1500 | Pentadecane | 0.84 ± 0.30a | 0.53 ± 0.13a |
| 39 | 1506 | Dibenzofuran | 1.25 ± 0.77a | 0.53 ± 0.09b |
| 40 | 1508 | α-Farnesene | 0.30 ± 0.40a | 1.19 ± 0.87b |
| 41 | 1528 | Dihydroactinidiolide | 6.81 ± 1.53a | 3.80 ± 0.55b |
| 42 | 1554 | Nerolidol | 1.10 ± 0.25a | 1.94 ± 0.69b |
| 43 | 1572 | Fluorene | 1.63 ± 0.70a | 0.88 ± 0.15a |
| 44 | 1598 | Cedrol | 1.18 ± 0.65a | 2.76 ± 0.98b |
| 45 | 1600 | Hexadecane | 1.76 ± 0.62a | 1.10 ± 0.29a |
| 46 | 1653 | α-Cadinol | 1.06 ± 0.19a | 0.83 ± 0.17b |
| 47 | 1659 | 2,2′,5,5′-Tetramethyl-1,1′-biphenyl | 0.70 ± 0.19a | 0.32 ± 0.10a |
| 48 | 1664 | 2-Methyl-hexadecane | 0.50 ± 0.09a | 0.11 ± 0.23a |
| 49 | 1700 | Heptadecane | 0.97 ± 0.30a | 0.82 ± 0.31a |
| 50 | 1706 | 2,6,10,14-Tetramethyl pentadecane | 2.35 ± 0.60a | 1.45 ± 0.79a |
| 51 | 1765 | Anthracene | 0.92 ± 1.17a | 0.50 ± 0.18a |
| 52 | 1800 | Octadecane | 0.69 ± 0.50a | 0.30 ± 0.11a |
| 53 | 1809 | 2,6,10,14-Tetramethyl hexadecane | 0.89 ± 0.33a | 0.64 ± 0.42a |
| 54 | 1828 | Isopropyl myristate | 0.08 ± 0.12a | 0.11 ± 0.12a |
| 55 | 1840 | Caffeine | 9.10 ± 2.82a | 5.07 ± 1.55a |
| 56 | 1846 | Phytone | 4.58 ± 2.08a | 2.31 ± 0.83a |
| 57 | 1918 | Farnesyl acetone | 1.21 ± .32a | 0.26 ± 0.24b |
| 58 | 1927 | Hexadecanoic acid methyl ester | 1.16 ± 0.69a | 0.51 ± 0.34b |
| 59 | 1949 | Isophytol | 0.47 ± 0.19a | 0.35 ± 0.11a |
| 60 | 1975 | Hexadecanoic acid | 1.83 ± 1.79a | 3.75 ± 1.47a |
| 61 | 2093 | Methyl linoleate | 0.26 ± 0.23a | 0.19 ± 0.09a |
| 62 | 2099 | Methyl linolenate | 0.57 ± 0.34a | 0.46 ± 0.28a |
| 63 | 2122 | Phytol | 7.71 ± 4.14a | 6.20 ± 1.93a |
| Alcohols | 29.81a | 50.77b | ||
| Hydrocarbons | 16.89a | 11.05a | ||
| Ketones | 15.31a | 10.18b | ||
| Esters | 3.06a | 4.18a | ||
| Aldehydes | 1.10a | 1.32a | ||
| Nitrogen compounds | 9.23a | 5.60a | ||
| Lactones | 6.81a | 3.80b | ||
| Others | 4.31a | 5.67a | ||
| Identified | 86.52 | 92.57 | ||
a RI retention indices as determined on HP-5MS column using the homologous series of n-alkanes (C8–C40)
bCompounds are listed in order of retention time
cThe content of volatile compounds were represented as mean value ± standard deviation (mean ± SD), same letter in the same row indicates no significant differences (p < 0.05)
Fig. 33D PCA score plots (a) and loading (b) plots derived from 63 volatile compounds in the 20 Pu-erh green tea samples
Fig. 4CA analysis based on the 63 volatile compounds of the 20 Pu-erh green tea samples