| Literature DB >> 35693454 |
Huajie Wang1,2, Wen Ouyang1,3, Yaya Yu1, Jinjin Wang1, Haibo Yuan1, Jinjie Hua1, Yongwen Jiang1.
Abstract
Second-drying is a key process of green tea manufacturing, however, hitherto the effect of second-drying methods on green tea quality has not been assessed. In this study, we compared the effect of three heat transfer drying methods (heat radiation, heat convection, and heat conduction) on green tea quality. Gas chromatography-tandem dual mass spectrometry was used to detect volatile compounds, while absolute quantitative methods were used to detect the non-volatile ones. We identified 45 non-volatile metabolites, 101 volatile metabolites, and 15 objective flavor indicators. Seventeen differential non-volatiles and 8 differential volatiles were screened. Microwave second-drying in heat radiation was the optimal method for green tea flavor, as it can promote the retention of chlorophyll, the degradation of flavonoid glycosides, and the enrichment of amino acids, soluble sugars, nonanal, trans-β-ionone, linalool, and jasmone. The results provide a theoretical basis and technical guidance for the precise and directional processing of high-quality green tea.Entities:
Keywords: Amino acids; BASD, box-hot air second-drying; CMSD, carding machine second-drying; Chlorophyll; FISD, far-infrared second-drying; GC-MS, Gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry; Green tea; Heat transfer methods; IRAE-HS-SPME, infrared-assisted coupled to headspace solid-phase microextraction; MEV, Multiple experiment viewer; MWSD, microwave second-drying; OAV, Odor activity value; Odor activity value; PLS-DA, Partial least-squares discriminant analysis; RPSD, rotary pot second-drying; Second-drying
Year: 2022 PMID: 35693454 PMCID: PMC9184872 DOI: 10.1016/j.fochx.2022.100354
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Chem X ISSN: 2590-1575
Fig. 1Green tea processing flow chart. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Analysis table of polyphenols, catechin components and total content, gallic acid, caffeine, and chlorophylls in green tea under different second-drying heat transfer methods.
| Compounds (%) | FISD | MWSD | BASD | CMSD | RPSD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPs | 11.292 ± 0.58b | 10.261 ± 0.392c | 10.196 ± 0.308c | 12.701 ± 0.301a | 11.912 ± 0.182b |
| GC | 0.198 ± 0.01b | 0.124 ± 0.011d | 0.175 ± c | 0.216 ± 0.008ab | 0.23 ± 0.012a |
| EGC | 0.62 ± 0.035b | 0.608 ± 0.051b | 0.604 ± 0.046b | 0.776 ± 0.035a | 0.848 ± 0.059a |
| C | 1.084 ± 0.014c | 1.067 ± 0.038c | 1.135 ± 0.05c | 1.435 ± 0.055b | 1.527 ± 0.052a |
| EGCG | 4.65 ± 0.178c | 4.51 ± 0.185c | 4.547 ± 0.18c | 6.247 ± 0.136b | 6.674 ± 0.16a |
| GCG | 0.123 ± 0.005b | 0.088 ± 0.005c | 0.089 ± 0.002c | 0.13 ± 0.004b | 0.144 ± 0.004a |
| ECG | 0.948 ± 0.048b | 0.906 ± 0.052b | 0.904 ± 0.049b | 1.313 ± 0.05a | 1.383 ± 0.05a |
| TETC | 5.722 ± 0.231c | 5.505 ± 0.241c | 5.541 ± 0.231c | 7.69 ± 0.19b | 8.2 ± 0.214a |
| TSC | 1.901 ± cd | 1.799 ± 0.099d | 1.913 ± 0.105c | 2.426 ± 0.098b | 2.606 ± 0.123a |
| TSC/TETC | 0.332 ± 0.008ab | 0.327 ± 0.014ab | 0.345 ± 0.015a | 0.316 ± 0.017b | 0.318 ± 0.019b |
| TAC | 7.623 ± 0.289c | 7.304 ± 0.34c | 7.454 ± 0.336c | 10.116 ± 0.288b | 10.806 ± 0.337a |
| GA | 0.846 ± 0.009b | 0.763 ± 0.006c | 0.832 ± 0.025b | 0.979 ± 0.04a | 1.011 ± 0.012a |
| CAF | 1.796 ± 0.035c | 1.824 ± 0.023bc | 1.87 ± 0.05b | 2.01 ± 0.029a | 2.029 ± 0.037a |
| Chlorophyll | 0.93 ± 0.01c | 1.03 ± 0.02a | 0.99 ± 0.01b | 1.04 ± 0.02a | 0.96 ± 0.03bc |
| Chlorophyll | 0.25 ± 0c | 0.32 ± 0.01a | 0.33 ± 0.02a | 0.33 ± 0.01a | 0.29 ± 0.01b |
| Chlorophyll (a + b) | 1.18 ± 0.01d | 1.35 ± 0.03ab | 1.32 ± 0b | 1.36 ± 0.01a | 1.25 ± 0.04c |
Notes: The capital letter represents the difference in tea sample contents in different drying methods at a level of 0.05.
Fig. 2(A-B) Column plot of flavonoid glycosides components in green tea under different second-drying heat transfer methods. (C) Thermography of amino acid composition and soluble sugars in green tea under different second-drying heat transfer methods. Note: Que-Glu-Gen, Quercetin 3-O-β-d-glucose-7-O-β-d-gentiobioside; Vit-Glu, Glucosyl-vitexin; Myr-gal, Myricetin 3-O-galactoside, Vit-rha, Vitexin-2-O-rhamnoside, Que-glu, Quercetin-3-O-glucuronide, Kea-rut, Kaempferol-3-Rutinoside, Kea-glu, kaempferol 3-O-glucoside, TAFG, Total flavonoid glycosides; AAs, Total amino acids; SSs, Total soluble sugars. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 3Heat map of levels of volatile category metabolites in green tea under different second-drying heat transfer methods. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Sensory evaluation results of green tea samples processed using various second-drying methods.
| Second-drying methods | Appearance | Liquor color | Aroma | Taste | Infused leaves | Total score | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluation | Score | Evaluation | Score | Evaluation | Score | Evaluation | Score | Evaluation | Score | ||
| FISD | Barely fat and bold bud, | 89.17 ± 0.29d | yellow | 88.33 ± 0.29d | Tender, chestnut obviously | 91.5 ± 0.50c | Barely strong and mellow (slight bitter) | 87 ± 0.50d | Fat and bold, yellow-green and slight dull | 92.33 ± 0.29ab | 89.33 ± 0.13e |
| MWSD | Barely fat and bold bud, | 94.5 ± 0.5a | Slight yellow | 89.17 ± 0.29c | Tender, faint and flowery | 93.5 ± 0.50a | Barely strong and mellow | 93.17 ± 0.76a | Fat and bold, | 92.5 ± 0.50ab | 93.12 ± 0.42a |
| BASD | Barely fat and bold bud, tippy, yellow-green and slight dull | 91 ± 0.00c | green | 91.33 ± 0.29b | Chestnut | 92.33 ± 0.29b | Barely umami and mellow, strong | 90.17 ± 0.29b | Yellow-green | 92.83 ± 0.29a | 91.3 ± 0.09b |
| CMSD | Barely Fat and bold bud, tighter | 92 ± 0.50b | Yellow-green | 91 ± 0.00b | Barely green, pure | 89 ± 0.50d | Barely strong, slight harsh | 88.17 ± 0.29c | Yellow-green bright | 92.83 ± 0.29a | 90.08 ± 0.10d |
| RPSD | Barely fat and bold bud, loose | 91.17 ± 0.29c | Slight yellow-green | 92.33 ± 0.29a | chestnut | 92.17 ± 0.29 cd | Barely umami and mellow, | 88 ± 0.00c | Yellow-green | 92 ± 0.50b | 90.67 ± 0.11c |
Note: Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences between fixation treatments (p < 0.05) based on the least significant difference test.
Fig. 4Effect of second-drying heat transfer methods on color attributes in green tea appearance (A-B) and soup (C). Effect of second-drying heat transfer methods on taste attributes (D). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 5Multivariate statistical analysis of different second-drying methods: PLS-DA score (A), loading diagram (B), differential substance heat map (C) for non-volatile metabolites of green tea treated for different second-drying heat transfer methods. PLS-DA score (D), loading diagram (E), differential substance heat map (F) for volatile metabolites of green tea treated for different second-drying heat transfer methods. Note: The letter A in Figure E stands for (1S-cis)-1,2,3,5,6,8a-hexahydro-4,7-dimethyl-1-(1-methylethyl)-naphthalene. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
OAV values and aroma characteristics of key differences of volatile compounds treated with different second-drying methods.
| Compounds name | OT (μg/L) | Odor Characteristic | FISD | MWSD | BASD | CMSD | RPSD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-Octen-3-ol | 1.5 | Mushroom, Lavender, rose aroma | 15.11 ± 3.33a | 16.06 ± 1.72a | 16.2 ± 5.84a | 7.93 ± 0.53c | 12.23 ± 0.23a |
| Linalool | 6 | Floral, lavender | 9.43 ± 2.2b | 12.29 ± 1.23a | 7.32 ± 0.68bc | 8.47 ± 0.2bc | 6.94 ± 0.31c |
| Geraniol | 40 | Rose | 0.24 ± 0.23c | 1.19 ± 0.36a | 0.08 ± 0.12c | 0.79 ± 0.09b | 0.19 ± 0.14c |
| Benzeneacetaldehyde | 4 | Woody, sweet aroma | 0.42 ± 0.28b | 1.77 ± 1.59ab | 0.42 ± 0.16b | 3.14 ± 1.82a | 0.45 ± 0.12b |
| Nonanal | 1 | Sweet Orange aroma | 10.42 ± 2b | 16.58 ± 0.11a | 9.48 ± 0.91bc | 10.99 ± 1.4b | 7.73 ± 0.38c |
| (z)-jasmone | 0.26 | Flowery | 37.7 ± 12.6b | 75.04 ± 25.21a | 33.86 ± 11.18b | 71.37 ± 7.38a | 36.75 ± 7.65b |
| 0.007 | Violet-like, floral, and raspberry-like | 1985.74 ± 292.73b | 3248.34 ± 783.7a | 2068.48 ± 164.81b | 3136.41 ± 374.06a | 2025.88 ± 333.37b | |
| 10 | Eucalyptus, lemongrass, citrus | 0.84 ± 0.16a | 0.54 ± 0.09bc | 0.63 ± 0.07b | 0.39 ± 0.02c | 0.43 ± 0.03c | |
| Methyl salicylate | 40 | Vanilla aroma | 0.25 ± 0.03b | 0.37 ± 0.09a | 0.21 ± 0.07b | 0.37 ± 0.03a | 0.21 ± 0.04b |
| (z)-Hexanoic acid, 3-hexenyl ester | 16 | Fruity | 3.33 ± 0.42b | 4.87 ± 0.46a | 2.89 ± 0.36 cd | 3.78 ± 0.1b | 2.61 ± 0.25d |
Notes: Different lowercase letters in a row indicate a significant difference between the second-drying method (p < 0.05) based on the least significant difference test.
: Determined according to.
: OT, odor threshold in water based on the literature (Wang et al., 2020b, Wang et al., 2020d, Zhu et al., 2021).