| Literature DB >> 35954052 |
Sihan Deng1,2, Xinru Zhou1, Haiyu Dong1, Yongquan Xu2, Ying Gao2, Baijuan Wang1,3,4, Xiaohui Liu1,3,4.
Abstract
The mellow and thick taste is a unique characteristic of pu-erh ripe tea infusion, and it is closely related to the chemical composition of pu-erh ripe tea, which is less studied. This paper clarifies and compares the chemical composition of pu-erh ripe tea to that of the raw materials of sun-dried green tea, and uses membrane separation technology to separate pu-erh ripe tea into the rejection liquid and the filtration liquid. The results show that microorganisms transformed most physicochemical components, except caffeine, during the pile fermentation. It was found that total tea polyphenols, soluble proteins, total soluble sugars, theabrownin, and galloylated catechins became enriched in the rejection liquid, and the rejection liquid showed a more obvious mellow and thick characteristic. Taste interactions between crude protein, crude polysaccharide, and theabrownin were determined. They illustrated that the mellow and thick taste of pu-erh ripe tea with the addition of theabrownin increased from 4.45 to 5.13. It is of great significance to explore the chemical basis of the mellow and thick taste in pu-erh tea for guiding the pu-erh tea production process and for improving the quality of pu-erh tea.Entities:
Keywords: mellow and thick; pu−erh ripe tea; taste interaction; theabrownins; ultrafiltration
Year: 2022 PMID: 35954052 PMCID: PMC9368183 DOI: 10.3390/foods11152285
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Information on the tea samples.
| Sample Type | Sample Number | Information |
|---|---|---|
| SGT (Sun−dried green tea) | S1 | SGT (Rong’s No. 1 Pile in 2020) |
| S2 | SGT (Rong’s No. 2 Pile in 2020) | |
| PRT (Pu−erh ripe tea) | P1 | PRT (Fermentation of Rong’s No. 1 Pile in 2020) |
| P2 | PRT (Fermentation of Rong’s No. 2 Pile in 2020) |
Experimental treatment with different formulations.
| Number | Treatment | Formulations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | PRT (P1, CK) | 10 mg·mL−1 |
| 2 | CDB | 1 mg·mL−1 |
| 3 | CDT | 1 mg·mL−1 |
| 4 | TB | 1 mg·mL−1 |
| 5 | Composite 1 | PRT + 1 mg·L−1 CDT |
| 6 | Composite 2 | PRT + 1 mg·L−1 CDB |
| 7 | Composite 3 | PRT + 1 mg·L−1 TB |
| 8 | Composite 4 | PRT + 1 mg·L−1 CDT + 1 mg·L−1 CDB |
| 9 | Composite 5 | PRT + 1 mg·L−1 CDT + 1 mg·L−1 TB |
| 10 | Composite 6 | PRT + 1 mg·L−1 CDB + 1 mg·L−1 TB |
| 11 | Composite 7 | PRT + 1 mg·L−1 CDT + 1 mg·L−1 CDB + 1 mg·L−1 TB |
Figure 1Sensory evaluation of SGT and PRT initial infusions. SGT: sun−dried green tea; PRT: pu−erh ripe tea; ** in the same taste attribute indicates p < 0.01; * indicates p < 0.05.
Figure 2The color of SGT and PRT initial infusions. (A) Visual appearance. (B) Chromatic parameters; ** indicates p < 0.01. SGT: sun−dried green tea; PRT: pu−erh ripe tea.
Figure 3Analysis of physicochemical composition. (A) Analysis results of PLS−DA. The score scatter plots of SGT and PRT. (B) PP: total tea polyphenols; SP: soluble proteins; SS: total soluble sugars; TSS: total soluble solids; TB: theabrownin; GA: gallic acid; and caffeine. (C) Catechins. (D) Non−galloylated catechins and galloylated catechins. SGT: sun−dried green tea; PRT: pu−erh ripe tea; ** indicates p < 0.01; * indicates p < 0.05; ns indicates p > 0.05.
Figure 4Contributions of PRT, RL, and FL to the mellow and thick taste. PRT: pu−erh ripe tea; RL: rejection liquid, FL: filtration liquid. Different lowercase letters in the same taste attribute indicate significant differences between data (p < 0.05).
Distribution of the physicochemical components of the PRT initial infusion, RL, and FL.
| Physicochemical Component (mg·L−1) | PRT Initial Infusion | RL | FL | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration | Distribution Ratio (PRT/PRT, %) | Concentration | Distribution Ratio (RL/PRT, %) | Concentration | Distribution Ratio (FL/PRT, %) | |
| Total tea polyphenols | 416.20 ± 34.47 b | 100.00 | 1032.78 ± 159.26 a | 247.02 | 154.77 ± 7.39 c | 37.45 |
| Soluble protein | 300.15 ± 37.12 b | 100.00 | 733.43 ± 74.34 a | 245.84 | 73.38 ± 25.85 c | 24.06 |
| Total soluble sugar | 288.55 ± 21.43 b | 100.00 | 1727.56 ± 194.87 a | 597.88 | 176.03 ± 29.59 b | 60.81 |
| Total soluble solids (%) | 0.29 ± 0.00 b | 100.00 | 1.01 ± 0.08 a | 352.73 | 0.19 ± 0.01 c | 66.02 |
| TB (%) | 3.63 ± 0.37 b | 100.00 | 5.62 ± 0.04 a | 154.82 | 1.12 ± 0.06 c | 30.85 |
| Gallic acid | 110.79 ± 2.52 a | 100.00 | 87.95 ± 9.65 c | 79.29 | 102.14 ± 9.46 b | 92.38 |
| Caffeine | 162.82 ± 0.45 a | 100.00 | 161.53 ± 0.22 b | 99.21 | 146.02 ± 1.06 c | 89.68 |
| GC | 6.68 ± 0.80 a | 100.00 | 5.43 ± 0.87 b | 81.15 | 6.29 ± 0.28 b | 94.82 |
| EGC | 4.14 ± 0.50 a | 100.00 | 0.81 ± 0.48 b | 19.26 | 3.25 ± 1.15 a | 80.24 |
| C | 3.14 ± 0.07 a | 100.00 | 3.14 ± 0.08 a | 100.19 | 3.12 ± 0.05 a | 99.43 |
| EGCG | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| EC | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| GCG | 3.82 ± 0.12 b | 100.00 | 4.10 ± 0.51 a | 107.04 | 3.79 ± 0.12 c | 99.12 |
| ECG | 8.36 ± 0.28 b | 100.00 | 11.57 ± 1.14 a | 138.25 | 3.45 ± 0.39 c | 41.49 |
| CG | 1.09 ± 0.23 b | 100.00 | 1.63 ± 0.22 a | 156.10 | 0.39 ± 0.11 c | 36.03 |
| Non−galloylated catechins | 13.96 ± 0.82 a | 100.00 | 9.38 ± 1.35 b | 66.99 | 12.65 ± 1.02 a | 91.17 |
| Galloylated catechins | 13.27 ± 0.17 b | 100.00 | 17.29 ± 0.77 a | 130.34 | 7.64 ± 0.61 c | 57.56 |
“−”, Information was not found in the literature. Different lowercase letters in the same row indicate significant differences between data (p < 0.05). PRT: pu−erh ripe tea; RL: rejection liquid, FL: filtration liquid.
Figure 5A plot of partial−least−squares discriminant analysis (PLS−DA) based on the chemical composition of PRT initial infusion, RL, and FL. PRT: pu−erh ripe tea; RL: rejection liquid; FL: filtration liquid.
Figure 6The mellow and thick taste evaluations of PRT initial infusions and recombination. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between data (p < 0.05). PRT: pu−erh ripe tea; CDT: crude polysaccharides; CDB: crude protein; TB: theabrownin; Cn: composite n. + indicates addition, − indicates no addition.