Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Molecules logoLink to Molecules
. 2026 Sep 11;31(18):3216. doi: 10.3390/molecules31183216

Study on the Quality Component Differences Among Tea Cultivars in Northern Guizhou

Manman Gao 1, Kai Zhang 2, Huan Wang 1, Heng Sun 1,*
Editor: Antoni Szumny
PMCID: PMC13609554  PMID: 42796503

Abstract

To elucidate how quality is reshaped in introduced tea varieties under Guizhou’s unique ecological conditions and to identify quality advantages and flavor differences between exotic and local germplasm resources, this study investigated the quality characteristics of tea plant germplasm from different geographic origins under Guizhou’s ecological conditions. Quality components and volatile aroma compounds were analyzed in four introduced cultivars (CC4H, SLX, SMCY, HJC1) and two local cultivars (QM601, GZSC). Sensory evaluation indicated that CC4H, SMCY, and HJC1 were more suitable for manufacturing premium green tea in the local area. GC-MS identified 147 volatile compounds, with alcohols present at the highest concentrations (1090.69–1499.18 μg/kg). SMCY had the highest total alcohol content. rOAV analysis confirmed that benzaldehyde, (E)-β-damascone, β-ionone, and 1-octene-3-one are the key contributors to the aroma profile. Among the introduced cultivars, SMCY stands out for its floral and aromatic compounds; SLX is notably rich in floral and fruity aldehydes and esters; CC4H has a distinct roasted sweetness, and HJC1 offers the best freshness. The local variety QM601 exhibits synergistic accumulation of tea polyphenols and fruity terpenes, while GZSC maintains its traditional advantage in the balance of phenolic and amino compounds. These findings provide a theoretical basis for the differentiated deployment of tea cultivars in Guizhou’s tea-growing regions.

Keywords: tea cultivars, quality components, volatile aromatic compounds, rOAV

1. Introduction

The tea plant (Camellia sinensis L. O. Kuntze) is a perennial cash crop known for its unique quality characteristics, which arise from the interaction between its genetic background and the cultivation environment [1]. One key factor is the germplasm genotype, which influences the abundance and composition of secondary metabolites. This, in turn, directly impacts the plant’s ability to produce essential flavors such as amino acids, tea polyphenols, and catechins [2]. Regional ecological factors—such as altitude, light intensity, temperature, humidity, and soil physicochemical characteristics—play a crucial role in modulating the metabolic rhythms of tea plants. These factors influence the proportional accumulation of metabolites, ultimately resulting in diverse sensory flavor profiles across different cultivars and production areas [3,4,5,6]. This interaction between genotype and environment suggests that when geographically distinct cultivars are introduced to a common ecological region, the degree of divergence in quality components is determined by the intrinsic metabolic capacity of the cultivars. Additionally, this divergence is shaped by the adaptation of their existing metabolic pathways in response to the new environmental conditions.

As a prime example of high-altitude, premium tea-growing regions in southwest China, Guizhou’s unique natural environment—characterized by “high altitude, limited sunlight, frequent fog, and a pristine ecosystem”—endows its tea with quality advantages such as high amino acid content, a balanced phenolic-to-amino acid ratio, and a delicate yet rich aroma [7]. The abundant local tea plant genetic resources within the province provide the genetic foundation for the high-quality development and differentiated competitiveness of Guizhou’s tea industry. To broaden the genetic diversity of tea plant resources, optimize product flavor profiles, and meet diverse market demands, a large number of high-quality tea plant germplasms from outside the province have been introduced to Guizhou in recent years for local cultivation and domestication. However, after any plant cultivar is introduced into a new environment, its physiological metabolism and quality traits must undergo long-term adaptive remodeling in response to specific ecological factors [8,9]. To date, systematic comparative research on the quality domestication characteristics of tea plant germplasm from different geographical origins under typical ecological conditions in Guizhou remains lacking. In addition, the mechanisms underlying the formation of quality differences between these germplasm sources and Guizhou’s native superior germplasm remain largely unexplored.

In this study, four tea cultivars sourced from different provinces outside Guizhou were examined, with two major tea cultivars grown locally in Guizhou used as controls. Under strictly standardized cultivation management and field conditions, key quality indicators—including free amino acids, tea polyphenols, water-soluble extracts, and volatile aromatic compounds—were systematically measured in each tea cultivar. Furthermore, by combining multivariate statistical analysis and difference analysis methods, a thorough analysis of the phenotypic quality differences among the germplasm sources was conducted. The study aims to reveal the characteristics of quality reshaping in exogenous tea varieties following domestication and adaptation to Guizhou’s unique ecological conditions, and to identify the key points of quality advantages and flavor differences between exogenous and local germplasm. The findings will provide a solid theoretical basis and practical guidance for the innovative utilization of tea germplasm resources in Guizhou’s tea-growing regions, the optimization of high-quality and efficient cultivation techniques, and the targeted development of distinctive flavored tea products.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Analysis of Major Quality Components in Different Tea Cultivars

The physicochemical factors that determine tea quality grade primarily include key components such as tea polyphenols, free amino acids, and water-soluble extracts [10]. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution characteristics of the major biochemical components in tea samples prepared from the six test cultivars. As a key component of total soluble solids, tea polyphenols are not only the primary substances responsible for the astringent and bitter flavors of tea but also play a significant role in enhancing the richness and body of the tea infusion [11]. In this study, the six tea cultivars showed significant inter-cultivar differences in tea polyphenol content, ranked from highest to lowest as follows: QM601 > CC4H > GZSC > SLX > SMCY > HJC1 (Figure 1A). Differences between any two groups were statistically significant, indicating that QM601 has a distinct cultivar advantage in polyphenol accumulation. The pronounced inter-cultivar differences in tea polyphenol content observed here are consistent with the large natural variation in polyphenol accumulation reported across tea cultivars [12], supporting the conclusion that polyphenol accumulation is strongly genotype-dependent.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Content of major quality components in different tea cultivars ((A): Tea polyphenols; (B): Amino acids; (C): Aqueous extract; (D): Ratio of polyphenols to amino acids). Data represent mean ± SD, and means with the same letter are not significantly different from each other at p < 0.05.

Free amino acids are key flavor components that determine the fresh, crisp taste of tea liquor [13]. Experimental data show that the amino acid content of HJC1 is significantly higher than that of the other test cultivars (Figure 1B), suggesting that it has superior potential for a fresh and crisp taste. HJC1’s high free amino acid content suggests its potential as a superior raw material for fresh, umami green tea.

Previous studies have shown that the concentration of aqueous extract directly affects the richness and fullness of the tea’s flavor and is significantly correlated with aroma intensity and the depth of the brewed tea’s color [14]. In this experiment, the water-soluble extract content of QM601, SMCY, and CC4H was higher than that of the other three cultivars (Figure 1C), indicating that these three cultivars have a better chemical basis for shaping the overall taste of the tea infusion.

In addition, the ratio of polyphenols to amino acids (the phenol-to-amino acid ratio) is widely recognized as a key quantitative indicator for evaluating the freshness and balance between bitterness and astringency in green tea; it is generally believed that cultivars with a phenol-to-amino acid ratio below 8 are suitable for producing high-quality green tea [15,16]. As shown in Figure 1D, the phenol-to-amino acid ratios of all six test cultivars were below 8, meeting the basic threshold for green tea production. Other studies have also used the phenol-to-amino acid ratio to evaluate the processing suitability of tea cultivars. Consistent with our results, significant natural variation in the tea polyphenol/free amino acid (TP/FAA) ratio was observed among 87 elite tea cultivars [12], and a proper phenol-to-amino acid ratio was associated with good green tea quality in the Sichuan cultivar CH-1 [17]. Among them, GZSC (5.50) has a relatively high phenol-to-amine ratio; this variety is typically processed into black tea in Yunnan.

2.2. Sensory Evaluation Among Different Tea Cultivars

Independent sensory evaluation by 5 professional tea tasters revealed differences in dry-tea appearance, aroma, taste, liquor color, and infused leaves across the six green tea cultivars (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Sensory evaluation of six green teas.

In dry-tea appearance, SMCY exhibited a tender green and glossy appearance with the highest score of 93 points, followed by HJC1, CC4H, QM601, and SLX. GZSC scored only 87 points because of its dull color and irregular shape. In brew color evaluation, CC4H and HJC1 exhibited a tender-green and bright appearance and scored 95 points, followed by SMCY, QM601 and SLX. GZSC showed a distinctive light-purple liquor and obtained a score of 80 points. In aroma evaluation, SMCY and SLX achieved the highest score (95) because of their sweet, long-lasting fragrance. CC4H ranked second with a high and relatively persistent aroma (93). QM601 had a tender fragrance and a score of 91; GZSC possessed a floral note (90); HJC1 had a fresh fragrance and a score of 88. For taste quality, CC4H exhibited the highest score of fresh and mellow (92), followed by SMCY and HJC1 (90). SLX and QM601 showed astringent taste and scored 82 points; GZSC (80) showed bitter-astringent taste.

Based on the weighted evaluation system: appearance of dry tea (25%), brew color (10%), aroma (25%), taste (30%), and infused leaf (10%), the comprehensive sensory scores of the six green teas in descending order were as follows: CC4H (92) = SMCY (92) > HJC1 (91) > SLX (88) = QM601 (88) > GZSC (85). The sensory evaluation results indicated that CC4H, SMCY, and HJC1 were more suitable for manufacturing premium green tea in the local area.

2.3. Analysis of Volatile Aromatic Compounds in Different Tea Cultivars

To further investigate the differences in the composition of volatile compounds among different tea cultivars, this study employed headspace microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (HS-SPME/GC-MS) to perform qualitative and quantitative analyses of volatile metabolites in six tea cultivars.

A total of 147 volatile compounds were identified and quantified, including 32 ketones, 24 aldehydes, 21 alcohols, 14 esters, 12 alkenes, 13 pyrazines, 7 acids, 5 furans, 2 pyrroles, and 17 other compounds (Figure 3A, Table 1).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Analysis of volatile compounds in different tea cultivars ((A): Pie chart of volatile compound types; (B): Stacked histogram of volatile compounds; (C): OPLS-DA plot of volatile compounds; (D): Permutation test).

Table 1.

The relative content of aroma components in six different tea cultivars (μg/kg).

Compounds Retention Time RI Library RI CAS HJC1 CC4H GZSC QM601 SLX SMCY
Aldehydes
Nonanal 7.532 1391 1391 124-19-6 28.23 ± 4.86 ab 32.53 ± 2.84 a 20.33 ± 0.80 cd 13.27 ± 0.15 e 19.93 ± 2.30 d 27.67 ± 0.91 b
4-Methylbenzaldehyde 10.82 1619 1623 104-87-0 2.50 ± 0.29 b 2.20 ± 0.17 b 3.76 ± 0.22 a 2.10 ± 0.14 b 2.42 ± 0.33 b 3.21 ± 0.13 ab
Hexanal 3.194 1079 1083 66-25-1 5.44 ± 0.79 bc 5.98 ± 0.38 ab 5.10 ± 0.29 c 3.58 ± 0.22 d 4.93 ± 0.29 c 6.21 ± 0.38 a
Valeraldehyde 2.319 987 979 110-62-3 3.58 ± 0.32 ab 4.08 ± 0.15 a 2.76 ± 0.21 cd 2.54 ± 0.09 d 3.83 ± 0.64 ac 3.51 ± 0.26 bc
β-Cyclocitral 10.783 1615 1611 432-25-7 7.48 ± 0.91 d 11.20 ± 1.31 b 11.77 ± 0.81 ab 10.25 ± 0.64 c 12.06 ± 1.99 a 9.77 ± 0.35 c
Furfural 8.607 1461 1461 98-01-1 1.47 ± 0.15 c 8.49 ± 0.69 a 3.15 ± 0.35 b 2.47 ± 0.09 b 4.11 ± 1.73 b 1.69 ± 0.23 c
Salicylaldehyde 11.418 1676 1670 90-02-8 1.83 ± 0.25 b 2.29 ± 0.12 a 2.05 ± 0.14 ab 1.75 ± 0.12 c 2.60 ± 0.29 a 1.93 ± 0.14 bc
Benzaldehyde 9.458 1518 1520 100-52-7 83.40 ± 10.11 b 85.87 ± 4.50 b 67.30 ± 3.55 c 167.67 ± 11.50 a 85.57 ± 11.95 b 108.30 ± 7.43 b
2,6-Dimethyl-5-Heptenal 6.313 1312 1357 106-72-9 4.41 ± 0.40 c 6.30 ± 0.60 a 5.61 ± 0.42 ab 5.30 ± 0.35 b 6.52 ± 1.06 a 4.53 ± 0.26 c
2-Methylbutyraldehyde 1.933 946 914 96-17-3 17.13 ± 1.67 b 10.13 ± 0.41 d 10.92 ± 1.02 d 46.87 ± 3.02 a 18.23 ± 3.06 b 6.31 ± 0.50 e
5-Methylfurfural 10.216 1571 1570 620-02-0 4.55 ± 0.57 d 28.20 ± 1.97 a 11.77 ± 0.81 b 8.13 ± 0.42 c 12.00 ± 2.13 b 4.32 ± 0.29 d
Octanal 5.933 1287 1289 124-13-0 4.71 ± 0.78 bc 5.48 ± 0.48 b 3.02 ± 0.22 d 2.08 ± 0.03 e 3.38 ± 0.50 cd 5.03 ± 0.27 bc
Methylglyoxal 2.313 986 970 78-98-8 0.30 ± 0.03 ab 0.31 ± 0.03 a 0.23 ± 0.02 c 0.18 ± 0.01 d 0.30 ± 0.04 ab 0.25 ± 0.03 bc
Heptanal 4.439 1183 1185 111-71-7 11.75 ± 2.00 a 9.75 ± 0.90 ab 9.12 ± 0.51 b 4.24 ± 0.05 c 8.13 ± 1.02 b 8.72 ± 0.63 b
Pyrrole-2-Carboxaldehyde 13.935 2029 2030 1003-29-8 6.24 ± 0.77 c 11.73 ± 0.90 a 5.42 ± 0.21 c 4.36 ± 0.29 d 5.40 ± 0.85 c 3.07 ± 0.06 e
2-Heptenal 6.447 1321 1323 18829-55-5 0.43 ± 0.07 d 0.93 ± 0.19 a 0.57 ± 0.08 c 0.53 ± 0.11 c 1.03 ± 0.17 a 0.92 ± 0.03 ab
Tetradecanal 13.325 1925 1930 124-25-4 77.97 ± 9.08 b 23.30 ± 2.16 d 27.73 ± 1.19 d 10.26 ± 0.26 e 109.67 ± 7.77 a 29.57 ± 0.21 c
Safranal 11.062 1642 1648 116-26-7 9.85 ± 1.13 b 11.80 ± 1.20 a 11.70 ± 0.70 a 9.28 ± 0.71 b 11.02 ± 1.53 a 10.93 ± 0.55 a
Isovaleraldehyde 1.951 948 918 590-86-3 5.56 ± 0.63 a 1.11 ± 0.04 d 1.25 ± 0.10 d 5.11 ± 0.31 a 3.41 ± 0.58 c 2.59 ± 0.20 c
2-Hexenal 4.894 1216 1216 6728-26-3 0.55 ± 0.05 c 0.23 ± 0.02 d 0.76 ± 0.05 a 0.37 ± 0.02 d 0.45 ± 0.05 c 1.34 ± 0.07 a
Cis-Cinnamaldehyde 12.942 1866 1884 57194-69-1 0.13 ± 0.01 b 0.17 ± 0.01 a 0.16 ± 0.02 a 0.13 ± 0.01 b 0.18 ± 0.04 a 0.14 ± 0.02 b
Decanal 9.137 1496 1498 112-31-2 2.43 ± 0.62 b 2.61 ± 0.03 ab 2.10 ± 0.13 bc 1.67 ± 0.05 c 3.02 ± 0.99 a 2.09 ± 0.51 bc
Citral 11.906 1729 1732 141-27-5 0.74 ± 0.10 b 0.38 ± 0.04 d 1.31 ± 0.06 a 0.47 ± 0.04 cd 0.42 ± 0.04 d 0.69 ± 0.02 bc
α-Cyclocitral 8.169 1433 1425 432-24-6 0.42 ± 0.05 c 0.63 ± 0.05 a 0.60 ± 0.04 a 0.47 ± 0.02 bc 0.63 ± 0.05 a 0.48 ± 0.04 b
Ketones
2,3-Pentanedione 2.968 1055 1054 600-14-6 1.27 ± 0.12 c 2.51 ± 0.23 a 1.76 ± 0.19 b 1.07 ± 0.03 c 2.02 ± 0.39 ab 1.01 ± 0.02 c
1-Octen-3-One 6.116 1300 1301 4312-99-6 1.75 ± 0.25 c 2.52 ± 0.26 b 1.96 ± 0.17 c 1.59 ± 0.18 c 2.84 ± 0.33 a 3.00 ± 0.17 a
3-Penten-2-One 3.697 1124 1122 3102-33-8 3.79 ± 0.64 a 2.23 ± 0.80 bc 1.99 ± 0.27 c 2.93 ± 0.52 ab 2.33 ± 0.02 bc 2.21 ± 0.18 bc
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 1.87 939 945 78-93-3 0.57 ± 0.08 ab 0.41 ± 0.03 c 0.37 ± 0.04 c 0.69 ± 0.06 a 0.56 ± 0.18 ab 0.50 ± 0.05 bc
Jasmone 13.435 1943 1961 488-10-8 3.46 ± 0.51 d 20.20 ± 1.74 a 6.79 ± 0.21 c 11.67 ± 0.97 b 15.03 ± 1.85 a 30.83 ± 0.40 a
Mesityl Oxide 3.767 1130 1127 141-79-7 6.56 ± 0.34 d 13.57 ± 0.75 b 15.03 ± 0.40 a 14.60 ± 1.23 ab 23.03 ± 2.19 a 6.87 ± 0.47 d
3-Octen-2-One 7.715 1403 1396 1669-44-9 1.17 ± 0.17 c 2.51 ± 0.17 a 2.11 ± 0.22 b 1.30 ± 0.05 c 1.99 ± 0.17 b 1.93 ± 0.14 b
Benzophenone 16.254 2500 2508 119-61-9 1.76 ± 0.27 b 2.22 ± 0.33 a 2.05 ± 0.05 ab 1.60 ± 0.06 b 2.05 ± 0.16 ab 1.29 ± 0.03 c
3-Octanone 5.409 1251 1253 106-68-3 1.08 ± 0.14 ab 1.12 ± 0.05 a 1.00 ± 0.10 b 0.71 ± 0.05 c 1.05 ± 0.18 ab 1.21 ± 0.05 a
2-Octanone 5.862 1282 1285 111-13-7 2.62 ± 0.38 c 3.24 ± 0.14 a 2.46 ± 0.19 c 1.55 ± 0.08 d 2.89 ± 0.47 bc 2.84 ± 0.22 bc
2′-Aminoacetophenone 14.968 2230 2223 551-93-9 0.74 ± 0.12 a 0.56 ± 0.03 bc 0.48 ± 0.00 c 0.25 ± 0.01 d 0.52 ± 0.06 c 0.44 ± 0.02 c
Isophorone 10.399 1584 1591 78-59-1 1.51 ± 0.21 b 1.69 ± 0.11 a 1.39 ± 0.09 c 0.88 ± 0.06 d 1.60 ± 0.19 ab 1.13 ± 0.04 c
β-Ionone 13.411 1939 1941 79-77-6 27.63 ± 3.67 a 20.23 ± 2.45 b 19.57 ± 1.02 b 17.57 ± 0.21 b 23.30 ± 2.69 ab 20.23 ± 0.21 b
2-Methyl-1-Penten-3-One 3.034 1062 1069 25044-01-3 6.66 ± 0.83 c 8.39 ± 0.58 a 5.49 ± 0.51 d 7.92 ± 0.36 ab 6.73 ± 1.26 c 5.09 ± 0.24 d
2-Heptanone 4.393 1179 1182 110-43-0 8.88 ± 1.23 ab 9.22 ± 0.47 a 7.83 ± 0.60 c 5.01 ± 0.31 d 8.07 ± 1.27 bc 8.75 ± 0.80 ab
2,3-Octanedione 6.489 1324 1335 585-25-1 27.50 ± 2.72 bc 31.27 ± 2.05 ab 22.73 ± 4.21 c 27.00 ± 1.30 bc 39.00 ± 7.66 a 27.50 ± 1.65 bc
2(5H)-Furanone 12.1 1753 1743 497-23-4 0.17 ± 0.02 c 0.35 ± 0.03 a 0.17 ± 0.03 c 0.08 ± 0.01 d 0.31 ± 0.14 ab 0.26 ± 0.03 b
6-Methyl-5-Hepten-2-One 6.662 1335 1336 110-93-0 35.00 ± 3.38 c 49.90 ± 4.83 a 46.53 ± 3.07 ab 38.30 ± 1.99 c 44.60 ± 7.25 b 44.93 ± 2.27 b
Nerylacetone 12.855 1853 1838 3879-26-3 9.85 ± 1.31 c 15.47 ± 2.04 a 17.07 ± 1.11 a 10.59 ± 0.72 c 14.40 ± 1.90 ab 12.27 ± 0.32 b
1-Hepten-3-One 5.159 1234 1221 2918-13-0 0.29 ± 0.10 b 0.32 ± 0.09 b 0.32 ± 0.04 b 0.38 ± 0.27 b 0.51 ± 0.35 a 0.20 ± 0.01 c
2,4-Dimethyl-3-Hexanone 4.18 1162 1178 18641-70-8 2.44 ± 0.30 c 3.84 ± 0.61 a 3.52 ± 0.21 ab 2.21 ± 0.11 c 4.54 ± 1.54 a 2.16 ± 0.10 c
Damascenone 12.609 1818 1813 23726-93-4 0.32 ± 0.05 d 0.56 ± 0.03 b 0.62 ± 0.02 a 0.31 ± 0.02 d 0.67 ± 0.08 a 0.19 ± 0.01 e
(E)-β-Damascone 12.909 1861 1830 23726-91-2 0.62 ± 0.11 c 1.00 ± 0.13 b 2.25 ± 3.40 ab 4.17 ± 0.26 a 1.27 ± 0.13 bc 5.25 ± 0.12 a
Furaneol 13.947 2031 2031 3658-77-3 2.70 ± 0.36 c 8.67 ± 1.17 a 5.54 ± 0.30 b 2.01 ± 0.53 c 4.73 ± 0.67 b 1.89 ± 0.05 c
(E, E)-3,5-Octadien-2-One 9.424 1516 1522 38284-27-4 3.38 ± 0.36 d 8.61 ± 0.62 a 6.04 ± 0.21 c 7.97 ± 0.43 b 6.14 ± 0.80 c 11.03 ± 0.70 a
1-(3,5-Dimethylpyrazinyl)-Ethanone 11.347 1669 1629 54300-08-2 0.28 ± 0.03 b 0.55 ± 0.04 a 0.34 ± 0.03 b 0.14 ± 0.01 d 0.30 ± 0.03 bc 0.10 ± 0.01 e
2-Pentanone 2.308 986 983 107-87-9 0.07 ± 0.01 b 0.10 ± 0.00 a 0.08 ± 0.01 b 0.07 ± 0.00 b 0.10 ± 0.02 a 0.09 ± 0.01 ab
2,6-Dimethyl-4-Hepten-3-One 12.19 1764 1754 56259-14-4 0.26 ± 0.03 c 0.30 ± 0.02 b 0.25 ± 0.02 c 0.21 ± 0.01 d 0.40 ± 0.05 a 0.34 ± 0.00 b
2,5-Dimethyl-3-Hexanone 4.234 1167 1145 1888-57-9 0.05 ± 0.02 b 0.13 ± 0.04 a 0.09 ± 0.04 ab 0.05 ± 0.00 b 0.11 ± 0.11 ab 0.04 ± 0.01 b
2-Nonanone 7.443 1386 1388 821-55-6 0.52 ± 0.09 c 0.68 ± 0.05 b 0.54 ± 0.06 c 0.30 ± 0.01 d 0.54 ± 0.10 c 2.22 ± 0.19 a
2-Pentadecanone 13.883 2019 2019 2345-28-0 0.27 ± 0.05 c 0.42 ± 0.03 a 0.34 ± 0.03 b 0.24 ± 0.03 c 0.34 ± 0.04 b 0.26 ± 0.00 c
Ethyl Vinyl Ketone 2.629 1020 1019 1629-58-9 0.21 ± 0.03 b 0.11 ± 0.01 c 0.15 ± 0.02 c 0.19 ± 0.02 bc 0.24 ± 0.04 b 0.43 ± 0.03 a
Esters
Methyl Palmitate 14.911 2218 2209 112-39-0 4.21 ± 0.48 d 5.13 ± 0.27 c 6.57 ± 0.31 a 5.75 ± 0.06 b 5.29 ± 0.74 c 10.10 ± 0.30 a
Methyl Hexanoate 4.469 1185 1184 106-70-7 6.33 ± 0.69 a 3.19 ± 0.20 c 5.23 ± 0.41 b 2.21 ± 0.09 d 3.78 ± 0.52 c 6.15 ± 0.58 a
(Z)-Acetate 3-Hexen-1-Ol 6.905 1351 1327 3681-71-8 2.83 ± 0.29 a 0.23 ± 0.01 e 1.56 ± 0.07 c 2.42 ± 0.14 b 0.71 ± 0.10 d 0.18 ± 0.01 e
Phenethyl Acetate 12.364 1785 1813 103-45-7 2.05 ± 0.31 b 0.82 ± 0.07 d 0.77 ± 0.03 d 1.05 ± 0.08 c 0.73 ± 0.12 d 3.47 ± 0.23 a
Pentyl Hexanoate 9.331 1509 1510 540-07-8 0.19 ± 0.04 c 0.23 ± 0.02 b 0.16 ± 0.01 d 0.09 ± 0.00 e 0.22 ± 0.02 b 0.14 ± 0.01 d
Methyl Octanoate 7.48 1388 1389 111-11-5 1.10 ± 0.20 c 1.22 ± 0.13 bc 1.04 ± 0.06 c 1.27 ± 0.08 b 1.14 ± 0.16 c 3.00 ± 0.26 a
Methyl Salicylate 12.271 1774 1766 119-36-8 29.87 ± 4.14 d 61.93 ± 6.83 c 93.47 ± 5.03 a 69.93 ± 4.82 c 112.17 ± 14.46 a 65.43 ± 2.06 c
Methyl Anthranilate 15.062 2250 2260 134-20-3 3.03 ± 0.51 c 4.47 ± 0.38 a 1.92 ± 0.04 d 2.63 ± 0.28 c 1.83 ± 0.22 d 2.02 ± 0.09 d
Methyl Linoleate 16.233 2496 2482 112-63-0 1.97 ± 0.21 b 1.94 ± 0.10 b 3.17 ± 0.10 a 1.93 ± 0.15 b 2.29 ± 0.27 b 5.57 ± 0.16 a
Linalyl Acetate 9.445 1517 1555 115-95-7 0.45 ± 0.04 d 6.92 ± 0.59 a 1.41 ± 0.10 c 3.72 ± 0.30 b 2.58 ± 0.29 b 2.40 ± 0.11 b
(Z)-Benzoate 3-Hexen-1-Ol 14.475 2130 2126 25152-85-6 0.05 ± 0.01 a 0.05 ± 0.00 a 0.04 ± 0.00 ab 0.03 ± 0.00 b 0.06 ± 0.01 a 0.05 ± 0.01 a
γ-Caprolactone 11.627 1696 1694 695-06-7 1.44 ± 0.16 c 1.91 ± 0.08 a 1.48 ± 0.07 c 1.18 ± 0.07 d 1.82 ± 0.21 ab 1.89 ± 0.11 ab
γ-Decalactone 14.589 2153 2163 706-14-9 0.33 ± 0.05 c 0.56 ± 0.04 a 0.41 ± 0.02 b 0.23 ± 0.01 d 0.42 ± 0.05 b 0.32 ± 0.02 c
Methyl Nonanoate 9.046 1490 1493 1731-84-6 0.08 ± 0.01 d 0.17 ± 0.01 b 0.14 ± 0.01 c 0.18 ± 0.00 a 0.14 ± 0.02 c 0.39 ± 0.02 a
Alcohols
Phenylethyl Alcohol 13.236 1910 1907 60-12-8 681.67 ± 51.48 a 424.67 ± 15.28 c 491.00 ± 8.72 b 444.33 ± 15.53 c 378.67 ± 31.72 d 766.33 ± 10.21 a
Geraniol 12.787 1844 1847 106-24-1 105.20 ± 14.38 a 60.97 ± 5.25 c 179.33 ± 8.08 a 66.57 ± 4.68 c 67.23 ± 8.47 c 88.10 ± 2.51 b
Linalool 9.851 1546 1547 78-70-6 72.63 ± 8.33 c 113.00 ± 6.24 b 42.23 ± 1.99 d 261.33 ± 11.24 a 144.00 ± 19.52 b 147.33 ± 7.23 b
1-Octanol 9.996 1556 1557 111-87-5 32.03 ± 4.73 b 37.47 ± 1.45 a 25.83 ± 1.27 c 20.03 ± 0.93 d 31.43 ± 4.34 b 29.50 ± 1.32 b
1-Undecanol 11.707 1705 1719 112-42-5 2.94 ± 0.47 c 4.48 ± 0.41 a 4.32 ± 0.15 a 3.20 ± 0.25 c 4.73 ± 0.48 a 2.80 ± 0.13 c
1-Octen-3-Ol 8.375 1446 1450 3391-86-4 19.70 ± 2.44 c 29.10 ± 3.46 a 23.33 ± 1.55 b 19.30 ± 0.98 c 27.93 ± 4.35 a 26.30 ± 1.51 ab
Benzyl Alcohol 13.005 1875 1870 100-51-6 195.00 ± 20.95 d 276.00 ± 9.54 c 249.67 ± 6.81 c 204.33 ± 8.96 d 304.00 ± 29.05 b 348.33 ± 10.69 a
1-Penten-3-Ol 4.073 1154 1157 616-25-1 0.51 ± 0.05 d 0.48 ± 0.04 d 0.54 ± 0.03 cd 0.66 ± 0.04 c 0.71 ± 0.13 b 0.94 ± 0.06 a
α-Terpineol 11.576 1691 1688 98-55-5 31.73 ± 4.18 d 57.77 ± 3.84 b 11.77 ± 0.45 e 117.33 ± 8.08 a 56.07 ± 7.23 b 23.40 ± 0.53 c
Epi-Cubenol 14.124 2063 2067 19912-67-5 1.00 ± 0.12 d 4.31 ± 0.48 b 0.92 ± 0.02 d 0.78 ± 0.07 d 7.27 ± 0.73 a 0.87 ± 0.02 d
Hotrienol 10.683 1606 1603 29957-43-5 1.39 ± 0.16 d 18.13 ± 1.42 b 4.82 ± 0.11 c 22.93 ± 1.74 a 15.77 ± 1.86 b 2.96 ± 0.09 c
Nerol 12.451 1796 1797 106-25-2 5.45 ± 0.89 b 1.66 ± 0.17 d 4.01 ± 0.19 c 4.15 ± 0.34 c 1.88 ± 0.31 d 2.02 ± 0.10 d
1-Pentanol 5.307 1244 1250 71-41-0 32.23 ± 2.06 c 41.67 ± 4.66 b 30.77 ± 2.54 c 28.13 ± 1.67 c 56.70 ± 8.41 a 27.33 ± 2.39 c
1-Phenylethanol 12.552 1809 1821 98-85-1 0.89 ± 0.12 d 1.47 ± 0.09 b 2.49 ± 0.09 a 0.94 ± 0.05 d 2.73 ± 0.38 a 5.39 ± 0.61 a
Cis-Nerolidol 13.967 2035 2044 142-50-7 1.56 ± 0.22 d 4.89 ± 0.47 a 2.97 ± 0.23 c 1.41 ± 0.13 d 3.18 ± 0.33 c 2.75 ± 0.09 c
Isogeraniol 12.534 1807 1820 5944-20-7 0.88 ± 0.14 c 1.27 ± 0.10 b 1.32 ± 0.07 b 0.91 ± 0.08 c 1.29 ± 0.14 b 1.90 ± 0.06 a
4-Hexen-1-Ol 7.346 1379 1391 928-92-7 0.49 ± 0.05 d 0.70 ± 0.07 c 1.77 ± 0.11 a 2.02 ± 0.10 a 1.63 ± 0.37 a 1.87 ± 0.15 a
1-Decanol 12.111 1754 1760 112-30-1 0.40 ± 0.09 b 0.35 ± 0.01 b 0.32 ± 0.02 b 1.20 ± 0.11 a 0.52 ± 0.08 b 0.31 ± 0.01 b
Nonan-1-Ol 11.233 1658 1660 143-08-8 3.70 ± 0.52 b 2.70 ± 0.21 c 2.13 ± 0.09 cd 1.56 ± 0.11 d 2.79 ± 0.37 c 4.42 ± 0.26 a
1-Heptanol 8.438 1450 1453 111-70-6 7.00 ± 0.93 b 5.07 ± 0.14 c 4.92 ± 0.30 c 3.88 ± 0.17 d 6.77 ± 0.83 b 9.79 ± 0.36 a
Menthol 14.445 1643 1644 2216-51-5 7.14 ± 1.58 bc 7.39 ± 0.80 b 6.23 ± 0.30 c 4.34 ± 0.35 d 14.70 ± 2.07 a 6.52 ± 0.19 c
Alkenes
(+/−)-Limonene 4.609 1196 1199 138-86-3 10.74 ± 1.68 d 33.87 ± 3.93 b 9.68 ± 0.63 d 53.97 ± 2.66 a 25.97 ± 7.33 c 8.50 ± 0.47 d
Terpinolene 5.836 1280 1281 586-62-9 7.98 ± 0.99 c 20.63 ± 1.33 a 4.53 ± 0.21 d 47.53 ± 2.50 a 16.27 ± 2.37 b 6.75 ± 0.25 c
γ-Terpinene 5.152 1234 1238 99-85-4 11.61 ± 1.48 a 9.55 ± 0.77 b 7.28 ± 0.34 c 13.97 ± 1.12 a 8.72 ± 1.66 b 3.30 ± 0.17 d
Calamenene 12.714 1833 1839 72937-55-4 11.37 ± 1.18 c 45.77 ± 4.25 a 7.72 ± 0.37 d 6.89 ± 0.51 d 62.70 ± 5.98 a 7.45 ± 0.48 d
Longicyclene 9.095 1493 1519 1137-12-8 3.77 ± 0.25 d 8.39 ± 0.79 b 10.31 ± 0.60 a 7.53 ± 0.89 bc 7.49 ± 1.23 bc 3.91 ± 0.41 d
α-Cubebene 8.516 1455 1463 31141-66-9 5.54 ± 0.68 c 14.77 ± 1.37 a 1.79 ± 0.09 d 1.45 ± 0.11 d 20.97 ± 2.16 a 1.75 ± 0.04 d
(3 E)-β-Ocimene 5.392 1250 1250 13877-91-3 11.05 ± 1.39 c 23.43 ± 1.59 b 16.37 ± 0.67 b 40.37 ± 2.36 a 15.33 ± 1.17 b 8.34 ± 3.56 c
α-Terpinene 4.348 1176 1178 99-86-5 7.83 ± 0.97 b 8.87 ± 0.94 a 5.61 ± 0.45 d 12.73 ± 0.50 a 8.35 ± 2.42 b 2.88 ± 0.04 e
β-Pinene 4.155 1160 1116 127-91-3 16.10 ± 4.69 c 26.40 ± 7.63 b 25.37 ± 0.45 b 36.87 ± 1.75 a 22.13 ± 7.76 b 12.41 ± 4.39 d
Copaene 9.714 1536 1492 3856-25-5 0.42 ± 0.06 c 1.04 ± 0.09 a 0.42 ± 0.02 c 30.13 ± 1.76 a 1.29 ± 0.13 a 14.93 ± 0.91 b
α-Corocalene 14.15 2068 2060 20129-39-9 0.25 ± 0.04 c 1.31 ± 0.13 a 0.15 ± 0.01 d 0.15 ± 0.02 d 2.09 ± 0.19 a 0.14 ± 0.01 d
α-Phellandrene 4.767 1208 1167 99-83-2 0.42 ± 0.03 b 0.49 ± 0.01 a 0.45 ± 0.01 b 0.66 ± 0.06 a 0.40 ± 0.28 b 0.27 ± 0.01 c
Acids
Nonanoic Acid 14.655 2166 2171 112-05-0 18.17 ± 3.49 b 24.47 ± 1.94 a 15.93 ± 1.65 c 8.79 ± 0.81 d 15.43 ± 2.67 c 19.87 ± 0.90 b
Caproic Acid 12.797 1845 1846 142-62-1 24.13 ± 3.23 c 38.57 ± 1.82 a 24.87 ± 2.05 c 16.37 ± 0.93 d 29.90 ± 4.97 b 35.70 ± 1.90 a
Geranic Acid 15.478 2339 2347 459-80-3 8.00 ± 1.39 b 7.06 ± 0.48 c 43.50 ± 2.42 a 8.28 ± 0.54 b 6.86 ± 1.35 c 5.42 ± 0.08 d
Heptanoic Acid 13.488 1952 1950 111-14-8 16.47 ± 3.30 a 14.83 ± 0.80 b 13.60 ± 0.72 c 5.37 ± 0.31 e 11.72 ± 2.02 d 15.63 ± 0.68 b
Octanoic Acid 14.101 2059 2060 124-07-2 7.67 ± 1.29 c 10.36 ± 1.23 a 5.62 ± 0.30 d 5.14 ± 0.59 d 10.03 ± 1.77 a 9.03 ± 0.52 b
Benzoic Acid 16.048 2459 2414 65-85-0 2.32 ± 0.33 d 5.25 ± 0.53 a 3.78 ± 0.43 b 3.08 ± 0.99 c 6.27 ± 1.46 a 3.64 ± 0.31 bc
2-Ethylbutyric Acid 11.673 1701 1711 32391 39.30 ± 3.95 c 59.40 ± 4.45 b 43.27 ± 4.64 c 33.77 ± 1.46 d 70.43 ± 9.90 a 41.60 ± 1.44 c
Pyrazines
2,3-Dimethylpyrazine 6.729 1339 1344 5910-89-4 3.46 ± 0.36 c 11.43 ± 0.72 a 5.32 ± 0.45 b 4.08 ± 0.19 c 5.30 ± 1.00 b 1.88 ± 0.15 d
2-Ethylpyrazine 6.56 1328 1337 13925-00-3 3.55 ± 0.32 d 17.83 ± 1.27 a 11.53 ± 0.90 b 5.53 ± 0.30 d 9.66 ± 1.52 c 3.14 ± 0.37 d
2,5-Dimethylpyrazine 6.364 1316 1320 123-32-0 69.60 ± 6.05 d 236.33 ± 12.50 a 184.33 ± 11.93 b 85.10 ± 4.51 d 143.33 ± 19.86 c 56.63 ± 3.55 e
2,6-Dimethylpyrazine 6.454 1322 1328 108-50-9 18.83 ± 1.82 c 99.27 ± 5.62 a 62.00 ± 4.73 b 27.53 ± 1.33 c 53.27 ± 7.05 b 18.33 ± 1.39 c
2,6-Diethylpyrazine 8.088 1428 1445 13067-27-1 0.83 ± 0.11 b 2.99 ± 0.21 a 1.31 ± 0.12 b 0.70 ± 0.03 c 1.14 ± 0.18 b 0.30 ± 0.03 d
2,3,5-Trimethylpyrazine 7.597 1396 1395 14667-55-1 18.33 ± 2.29 c 39.00 ± 2.96 a 20.40 ± 1.35 c 10.97 ± 0.59 d 16.93 ± 2.66 c 6.35 ± 0.33 e
3-Ethyl-2,5-Dimethylpyrazine 8.238 1437 1435 13360-65-1 76.70 ± 9.44 d 223.67 ± 15.04 a 128.33 ± 8.33 b 58.00 ± 2.86 e 116.67 ± 16.50 b 34.40 ± 1.65 f
2-Methylpyrazine 5.542 1260 1266 109-08-0 9.44 ± 0.67 d 58.87 ± 3.61 a 37.90 ± 3.29 b 19.83 ± 1.27 c 34.50 ± 6.24 b 13.17 ± 1.02 c
2-Ethyl-5-Methylpyrazine 7.424 1384 1383 13360-64-0 48.73 ± 28.26 c 178.00 ± 10.82 a 130.67 ± 8.74 b 63.00 ± 3.20 c 76.90 ± 37.10 c 26.77 ± 12.55 d
2,5-Diethylpyrazine 8.989 1486 1456 13238-84-1 2.41 ± 0.34 c 6.69 ± 0.57 a 3.21 ± 0.24 b 1.55 ± 0.09 d 2.71 ± 0.43 bc 0.63 ± 0.03 e
2,3-Diethyl-5-Methylpyrazine 9.319 1508 1486 18138-04-0 1.14 ± 0.18 c 2.93 ± 0.17 a 1.22 ± 0.08 c 0.75 ± 0.06 d 1.11 ± 0.18 c 0.27 ± 0.02 e
Acetylpyrazine 10.848 1621 1631 22047-25-2 0.41 ± 0.05 c 1.37 ± 0.10 a 0.81 ± 0.04 b 0.37 ± 0.02 c 0.79 ± 0.10 b 0.47 ± 0.02 c
3,5-Diethyl-2-Methylpyrazine 9.273 1505 1508 18138-05-1 3.65 ± 0.55 b 6.57 ± 0.56 a 2.71 ± 0.21 c 1.74 ± 0.09 d 2.52 ± 0.39 c 0.62 ± 0.02 e
Furans
2-Ethylfuran 2.152 969 951 3208-16-0 2.03 ± 0.23 c 2.52 ± 0.17 b 2.22 ± 0.21 c 1.87 ± 0.11 c 2.56 ± 0.42 b 3.26 ± 0.22 a
2-Acetylfuran 9.205 1500 1499 1192-62-7 18.27 ± 1.67 d 98.30 ± 5.57 a 60.03 ± 4.20 b 40.27 ± 2.57 c 60.10 ± 8.15 b 20.37 ± 1.47 d
2-Pentylfuran 5.098 1230 1232 3777-69-3 51.87 ± 8.04 c 58.57 ± 2.91 b 43.63 ± 2.77 d 35.07 ± 1.69 e 48.33 ± 5.25 c 66.10 ± 5.21 a
2-(2-Pentenyl) Furan 6.142 1301 1282 70424-14-5 1.00 ± 0.12 d 1.83 ± 0.13 a 1.18 ± 0.10 c 1.62 ± 0.10 b 1.55 ± 0.23 b 2.07 ± 0.15 a
2-Methylfuran 1.848 937 870 534-22-5 0.74 ± 0.06 c 1.16 ± 0.08 b 1.64 ± 0.14 a 0.77 ± 0.03 c 1.30 ± 0.23 b 1.34 ± 0.08 b
Pyrroles
1-Furfurylpyrrole 12.684 1829 1824 1438-94-4 0.37 ± 0.04 c 2.63 ± 0.21 a 1.35 ± 0.14 b 0.58 ± 0.05 c 0.64 ± 0.12 c 0.04 ± 0.03 d
2-Acetylpyrrole 13.606 1971 1973 1072-83-9 16.03 ± 2.18 d 56.20 ± 3.26 a 39.67 ± 1.38 b 22.17 ± 1.38 c 43.43 ± 5.17 b 9.23 ± 0.32 e
Miscellaneous
Vanillin 16.716 2577 2569 121-33-5 5.89 ± 1.08 c 18.77 ± 0.72 a 9.84 ± 0.73 b 11.90 ± 0.36 ab 11.43 ± 1.01 b 12.80 ± 0.30 a
1,1,6-Trimethyl-1,2-Dihydronaphthalene 12.016 1742 1737 30364-38-6 6.97 ± 0.94 b 11.03 ± 0.83 a 6.25 ± 0.47 c 7.13 ± 0.49 b 6.23 ± 0.90 c 1.32 ± 0.07 d
Toluene 2.8 1038 1042 108-88-3 7.39 ± 0.53 c 16.60 ± 1.51 a 9.25 ± 0.65 b 9.80 ± 0.52 b 10.57 ± 2.06 b 4.46 ± 0.42 d
Naphthalene 11.971 1737 1745 91-20-3 11.33 ± 1.25 bc 13.60 ± 2.25 ab 12.67 ± 1.00 b 15.40 ± 1.40 a 13.73 ± 1.55 ab 8.51 ± 0.68 c
Ethylbenzene 3.693 1124 1129 100-41-4 0.95 ± 0.07 b 1.31 ± 0.24 a 1.23 ± 0.03 a 0.99 ± 0.02 b 1.38 ± 0.22 a 0.77 ± 0.07 c
2,4-Di-Tert-Butylphenol 15.327 2306 2321 96-76-4 119.87 ± 19.69 a 108.67 ± 8.33 b 102.30 ± 4.10 b 139.67 ± 15.18 a 81.97 ± 5.66 c 59.70 ± 1.44 d
Tridecane 6.613 1332 1300 629-50-5 0.60 ± 0.07 c 0.85 ± 0.06 a 0.75 ± 0.04 b 0.64 ± 0.05 c 1.20 ± 0.35 a 0.58 ± 0.03 c
Tetradecane 8.255 1439 1400 629-59-4 2.91 ± 0.33 c 5.11 ± 0.39 a 4.73 ± 0.37 a 4.95 ± 0.24 a 4.38 ± 0.51 b 2.94 ± 0.09 c
P-Cymene 5.665 1269 1272 99-87-6 8.26 ± 0.89 c 11.23 ± 0.96 b 7.27 ± 0.36 d 15.47 ± 1.01 a 8.39 ± 1.42 c 3.61 ± 0.25 e
Fluorene 15.568 2359 2337 86-73-7 0.76 ± 0.14 c 1.37 ± 0.15 a 0.89 ± 0.05 b 0.62 ± 0.04 c 1.24 ± 0.13 a 0.81 ± 0.03 b
Hexadecane 10.574 1596 1600 544-76-3 1.61 ± 0.21 c 2.65 ± 0.23 a 2.52 ± 0.16 a 1.95 ± 0.16 b 3.14 ± 0.31 a 1.76 ± 0.09 c
O-Xylene 4.416 1181 1183 95-47-6 3.04 ± 0.29 c 4.51 ± 0.66 a 3.61 ± 0.13 b 2.49 ± 0.12 d 4.06 ± 0.39 ab 2.27 ± 0.23 d
Indole 16.054 2460 2469 120-72-9 9.96 ± 1.46 c 26.23 ± 2.05 a 17.77 ± 0.59 b 10.32 ± 0.73 c 10.97 ± 1.65 c 17.47 ± 0.42 b
Pentadecane 9.203 1500 1500 629-62-9 1.47 ± 0.27 c 1.88 ± 0.21 b 1.93 ± 0.22 b 1.64 ± 0.06 bc 2.19 ± 0.16 a 1.15 ± 0.04 d
Skatole 16.3 2508 2515 83-34-1 0.90 ± 0.15 c 1.34 ± 0.11 a 0.87 ± 0.05 c 1.27 ± 0.08 ab 0.71 ± 0.09 d 0.43 ± 0.01 e
Eugenol 14.683 2171 2169 97-53-0 0.26 ± 0.05 d 0.94 ± 0.07 a 0.32 ± 0.01 cd 0.32 ± 0.02 cd 0.63 ± 0.08 b 1.40 ± 0.02 a
Coumarin 16.131 2476 2465 91-64-5 2.53 ± 0.33 d 38.13 ± 2.56 a 7.90 ± 0.22 c 3.50 ± 0.17 d 8.50 ± 0.69 c 13.90 ± 0.44 b
Open in a new tab

Data represent mean ± SD, and means with the same letter are not significantly different from each other at p < 0.05.

Alcohols with floral and sweet notes were the most prevalent substances in teas, which occur not only in free forms but also in the form of glycosides [18]. Among the 147 volatile compounds, alcohols accounted for a relatively high proportion of the total, primarily phenethyl alcohol, benzyl alcohol, geraniol, linalool, and α-pinene, consistent with previous studies on the composition of tea aroma compounds [19]. The dominance of alcohols, particularly linalool, geraniol, and phenethyl alcohol, is consistent with comparative studies on green tea cultivars in which linalool, geraniol, and nonanal were among the most abundant volatiles [20]. Alcohols and hydrocarbons have also been reported as the two most prevalent volatile classes in green tea [21]. The total content of the six types of alcohol compounds showed a clear variety-dependent pattern, ranging from highest to lowest as follows: SMCY (1499.18 μg/kg) > QM601 (1209.36 μg/kg) > HJC (1203.54 μg/kg) > SLX (1130.01 μg/kg) > CC4H (1093.54 μg/kg) > GZSC (1090.69 μg/kg). The extremely high alcohol content in SMCY is a key factor contributing to its excellent aromatic quality. Floral-scented tea cultivars have been reported to accumulate higher levels of linalool and geraniol [22], which may explain the pronounced floral character of SMCY. This makes it a highly promising candidate variety for green tea with distinctive floral flavors. As shown in Table 1, phenethyl alcohol, benzyl alcohol, and linalool were present at high levels in SMCY, QM601, SLX, and CC4H, whereas HJC and GZSC are characterized by phenethyl alcohol, geraniol, and linalool as their primary aromatic components. Alcohols are the primary contributors to the delicate floral and fruity aromas of green tea. Existing research has confirmed that linalool works synergistically to create floral, fruity, and woody notes [23,24]. Geraniol combines fruity, floral, and sweet aromas with a fresh, green leafy note and is a key contributor to green tea’s floral notes, fresh, crisp aroma, and chestnut-like fragrance [25,26]. Phenethyl alcohol primarily contributes sweet and rose-like notes [27,28]. Differences in alcohol group composition among tea cultivars account for the distinct aromatic profiles observed in tea quality.

Among the 24 aldehydes detected, benzaldehyde, nonanal, tetradecanal, and β-cyclocitral were present in relatively high concentrations (Table 1). These components are commonly identified in green tea [29,30] and jointly contribute to tea aroma. A comparison of aldehyde content showed that the total aldehyde content in both SLX and QM601 was higher than in the other four cultivars, particularly benzaldehyde. Tetradecanal content in SLX was significantly higher than in the other five cultivars. Relevant studies have verified that benzaldehyde features a distinct almond odor, while nonanal delivers rose-like notes at low concentrations [31]. Tetradecanal contributes floral and citrus aromas, and β-cyclocitral imparts a minty scent [32]. Collectively, these compounds are vital contributors to tea aroma.

Among the 32 ketone compounds identified, jasmone, β-ionone, 2,3-octanedione, and 6-methylhept-5-en-2-one were present in relatively high concentrations. Among them, jasmone content in SMCY was significantly higher than in other cultivars. Previous studies have indicated that jasmone has floral and creamy-sweet aromas and may contribute to the sweet, mellow floral aroma in green tea [33]. The content of 2,3-octanedione (with notes of grass and fennel) in SLX was significantly higher than in other cultivars. In comparison, the content of 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one (with notes of apple and mushrooms) in CC4H was significantly higher than in other cultivars [34,35], indicating differentiated flux distribution in the lipoxygenase metabolic pathway among specific cultivars.

A total of 14 ester compounds were identified, with methyl salicylate displaying the highest concentration. Notably, its concentration in SLX was significantly greater than in other cultivars. Methyl salicylate is known for its characteristic minty aroma and is a common ester compound found in green tea [36]. Additionally, the content of methyl palmitate in SMCY was significantly higher than in the other four cultivars. This compound is primarily associated with waxy, oily, and iris-like aromas [37].

The Maillard reaction occurs readily during the high-temperature processing of green tea, yellow tea, oolong tea, and black tea and can produce various aromatic compounds such as pyrazines, furans, pyrroles, and their derivatives [38,39,40]. A total of 13 pyrazines, 5 furans, and 2 pyrroles were identified in this experiment, and the pyrazine and pyrrole contents in CC4H were significantly higher than those in other cultivars (Figure 3). Among these, 2,3-dimethylpyrazine and 2-methylpyrazine are important volatile compounds responsible for the “sweet” and “chestnut-like” characteristics [41]. The pyrazine/pyrrole-enriched profile of CC4H indicates its suitability for producing chestnut- and roasted-aroma green tea.

In terms of olefin compounds, the total content of QM601, CC4H, and SLX was significantly higher than that of the other three cultivars. Among these, the QM601 variety contained significantly higher levels of limonene, isopinoene, γ-terpinene, (3E)-β-basilene, α-terpinene, β-pinene, and cubene than the other cultivars. Studies have confirmed that limonene, isopinoene, γ-terpinene, and cubene all exhibit lemon and citrus fruit aromas [42,43,44], while (3E)-β-ocimene possesses woody and sweet characteristics [45]. The synergistic accumulation of these compounds in QM601 may significantly enhance the release of its floral and fruity notes. In addition, SLX has significantly higher levels of caramene, α-bisabolene, and α-corene than other cultivars, giving it a unique aromatic undertone. Furthermore, the co-occurrence of multiple fruity terpenes in QM601 may endow it with a distinctive fruity-floral character, complementing its polyphenol-rich taste profile.

To visually illustrate the inter-varietal differences in volatile aroma compounds among the six tea cultivars under study (HJC1, CC4H, GZSC, QM601, SLX, and SMCY), this study established an orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) model. As shown in Figure 3C, the first principal component (Comp 1) and the second principal component (Comp 2) in the OPLS-DA score plot explain 56.0% and 22.8% of the variance, respectively, with a cumulative variance explained of 78.8%, indicating that the first two principal components effectively capture the main variability in the original data. Based on the sample distribution, the six cultivars exhibit a distinct variety-specific clustering pattern on the scoring plot. Specifically, HJC1 and CC4H are concentrated on the positive end of Comp 1. At the same time, GZSC and QM601 show a high degree of spatial overlap on the negative end of Comp 1, suggesting a certain degree of similarity in their comprehensive metabolic profiles. SMCY and SLX exhibited relatively broad distributions at the positive and negative ends of Comp 2, respectively, reflecting their distinct flavor profiles. Overall, although the cultivars overlap somewhat on the OPLS-DA score plot, each variety forms a relatively distinct cluster, indicating that the comprehensive spectral characteristics of their volatile aromas and biochemical components are variety-specific.

To further validate the effectiveness and reliability of the OPLS-DA model, this study conducted 200 permutation tests (Figure 3D). The results show that in the replacement test, both the original values of R2 (the model’s explanatory power for the X variable) and Q2 (the model’s predictive ability) were higher than the corresponding values for all replacement random models. Furthermore, the intercept of the Q2 regression line was negative, indicating that the model does not exhibit overfitting and possesses good predictive ability and statistical reliability. The above results confirm that the OPLS-DA model based on volatile aroma compounds can effectively distinguish tea plant cultivars from different sources.

In summary, these six tea cultivars differ significantly in their aromatic characteristics, primarily due to variations in aromatic compound content and the proportions of key aromatic compounds.

2.4. Confirmation of Odor-Active Compounds in Six Tea Cultivars

A combination of numerous volatile compounds determines the final aroma profile of tea, but not all identified volatile substances make a substantial contribution to the final aroma quality. Odor researchers note that odor compounds with an rOAV (Relative Odor Activity Value) greater than 1 generally contribute to the overall aroma profile of the sample being analyzed. In addition, odor compounds with an rOAV greater than 100 are considered to play a significant role in shaping the overall aroma of the sample being analyzed [46]. Based on this, this experiment calculated the rOAV of each volatile compound to further identify the key flavor-forming compounds in six different tea cultivars.

As shown in Figure 4 and Table 2, a total of 36 key aroma-active compounds with rOAV values greater than 1 were identified, including aldehydes (11), ketones (7), esters (3), alcohols (4), alkenes (2), pyrazines (5), furans (1), and other classes (3), most of which present floral, fruity, and woody sensory notes. Among these, compounds with higher rOAV values include benzaldehyde (2804.17–6986.11), (E)-β-damascenone (616.33–5253.33), (3E)-β-ocimene (417.17–2018.33), β-ionone (836.51–1315.87), and 1-octene-3-one (531.11–998.89). These compounds were detected in all tea samples tested, and their rOAV values were well above 100, indicating that they form the core framework of the overall aromatic matrix in all samples. On the other hand, heterocyclic compounds with roasted or nutty aromas, such as 3-ethyl-2,5-dimethylpyrazine and 2,3-diethyl-5-methylpyrazine, were also identified as key contributors (all with rOAV values greater than 1), suggesting that heterocyclic compounds formed during thermal processes such as fixation and drying are crucial for the rich roasted and nutty aromas of green tea [47]. Furthermore, linalool, as a key aroma marker for many tea cultivars, had an rOAV greater than 1 in all six test cultivars in this study. Moreover, the rOAV for all cultivars except GZSC exceeded 10, further confirming linalool’s important role in shaping the floral aroma quality of tea [37].

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Heat map of potential key aroma compounds in processed teas from 6 different tea cultivars.

Table 2.

Aroma compounds with an rOAV > 1 in 6 different tea cultivars.

Metabolite CAS ID Threshold (μg/L or μg/kg) HJC1 CC4H GZSC QM601 SLX SMCY
Nonanal 124-19-6 1.1 25.67 ± 4.42 29.58 ± 2.58 18.48 ± 0.73 12.06 ± 0.14 18.12 ± 2.09 25.15 ± 0.82
Hexanal 66-25-1 4.5 1.21 ± 0.18 1.33 ± 0.09 1.13 ± 0.06 0.80 ± 0.05 1.10 ± 0.06 1.38 ± 0.08
β-Cyclocitral 432-25-7 3 2.49 ± 0.30 3.73 ± 0.44 3.92 ± 0.27 3.42 ± 0.21 4.02 ± 0.66 3.26 ± 0.12
Benzaldehyde 100-52-7 0.024 3475.00 ± 421.33 3577.78 ± 187.33 2804.17 ± 147.96 6986.11 ± 479.32 3565.28 ± 497.94 4512.50 ± 309.49
2-Methylbutyraldehyde 96-17-3 1.5 11.42 ± 1.12 6.75 ± 0.27 7.28 ± 0.68 31.24 ± 2.01 12.16 ± 2.04 4.20 ± 0.33
Octanal 124-13-0 0.8 5.89 ± 0.97 6.85 ± 0.60 3.78 ± 0.27 2.60 ± 0.04 4.22 ± 0.62 6.29 ± 0.33
Heptanal 111-71-7 2.8 4.20 ± 0.71 3.48 ± 0.32 3.26 ± 0.18 1.51 ± 0.02 2.90 ± 0.36 3.11 ± 0.23
Tetradecanal 124-25-4 67 1.16 ± 0.14 0.35 ± 0.03 0.41 ± 0.02 0.15 ± 0.00 1.64 ± 0.12 0.44 ± 0.00
Safranal 116-26-7 3 3.28 ± 0.38 3.93 ± 0.40 3.90 ± 0.23 3.09 ± 0.24 3.67 ± 0.51 3.64 ± 0.18
Isovaleraldehyde 590-86-3 0.5 11.12 ± 1.26 2.22 ± 0.08 2.51 ± 0.20 10.22 ± 0.62 6.81 ± 1.15 5.17 ± 0.39
Decanal 112-31-2 3 0.81 ± 0.21 0.87 ± 0.01 0.70 ± 0.04 0.56 ± 0.02 1.01 ± 0.33 0.70 ± 0.17
1-Octen-3-One 4312-99-6 0.003 584.44 ± 84.74 840.00 ± 87.43 654.44 ± 55.21 531.11 ± 59.66 947.78 ± 110.02 998.89 ± 57.48
Jasmone 488-10-8 1.9 1.82 ± 0.27 10.63 ± 0.92 3.57 ± 0.11 6.14 ± 0.51 7.91 ± 0.97 16.23 ± 0.21
β-Ionone 79-77-6 0.021 1315.87 ± 174.60 963.49 ± 116.87 931.75 ± 48.64 836.51 ± 9.91 1109.52 ± 127.86 963.49 ± 9.91
2,3-Octanedione 585-25-1 12 2.29 ± 0.23 2.61 ± 0.17 1.89 ± 0.35 2.25 ± 0.11 3.25 ± 0.64 2.29 ± 0.14
Damascenone 23726-93-4 0.006 53.17 ± 8.49 92.72 ± 5.59 103.06 ± 4.10 51.67 ± 3.18 111.56 ± 13.68 31.67 ± 1.17
(E)-β-Damascone 23726-91-2 0.001 616.33 ± 113.46 995.33 ± 133.81 2245.00 ± 3399.39 4166.67 ± 259.29 1266.67 ± 127.02 5253.33 ± 122.20
(E,E)-3,5-Octadien-2-One 38284-27-4 0.1 33.83 ± 3.60 86.10 ± 6.20 60.37 ± 2.06 79.67 ± 4.26 61.37 ± 8.02 110.33 ± 7.02
Methyl Salicylate 119-36-8 40 0.75 ± 0.10 1.55 ± 0.17 2.34 ± 0.13 1.75 ± 0.12 2.80 ± 0.36 1.64 ± 0.05
Linalyl Acetate 115-95-7 0.1109 4.02 ± 0.32 62.43 ± 5.32 12.71 ± 0.87 33.54 ± 2.72 23.29 ± 2.59 21.67 ± 1.01
Methyl Nonanoate 1731-84-6 0.04 1.97 ± 0.22 4.27 ± 0.23 3.46 ± 0.22 4.63 ± 0.08 3.44 ± 0.41 9.64 ± 0.49
Phenylethyl Alcohol 20-12-8 564.23 1.21 ± 0.09 0.75 ± 0.03 0.87 ± 0.02 0.79 ± 0.03 0.67 ± 0.06 1.36 ± 0.02
Geraniol 106-24-1 6.6 15.94 ± 2.18 9.24 ± 0.80 27.17 ± 1.22 10.09 ± 0.71 10.19 ± 1.28 13.35 ± 0.38
Linalool 78-70-6 6 12.11 ± 1.39 18.83 ± 1.04 7.04 ± 0.33 43.56 ± 1.87 24.00 ± 3.25 24.56 ± 1.21
1-Octen-3-Ol 3391-86-4 1.5 13.13 ± 1.63 19.40 ± 2.31 15.56 ± 1.04 12.87 ± 0.66 18.62 ± 2.90 17.53 ± 1.01
(3E)-β-Ocimene 13877-91-3 0.02 552.50 ± 69.60 1171.67 ± 79.43 818.33 ± 33.29 2018.33 ± 118.15 766.67 ± 58.59 417.17 ± 178.18
α-Phellandrene 99-83-2 0.04 10.61 ± 0.73 12.28 ± 0.28 11.23 ± 0.37 16.57 ± 1.61 9.95 ± 7.11 6.72 ± 0.32
3-Ethyl-2,5-Dimethylpyrazine 13360-65-1 25 3.07 ± 0.38 8.95 ± 0.60 5.13 ± 0.33 2.32 ± 0.11 4.67 ± 0.66 1.38 ± 0.07
2-Ethyl-5-Methylpyrazine 13360-64-0 16 3.05 ± 1.77 11.13 ± 0.68 8.17 ± 0.55 3.94 ± 0.20 4.81 ± 2.32 1.67 ± 0.78
2,5-Diethylpyrazine 13238-84-1 0.02 120.33 ± 17.22 334.67 ± 28.25 160.50 ± 12.13 77.67 ± 4.54 135.50 ± 21.50 31.28 ± 1.42
2,3-Diethyl-5-Methylpyrazine 18138-04-0 0.031 36.76 ± 5.91 94.62 ± 5.49 39.35 ± 2.64 24.13 ± 1.87 35.86 ± 5.90 8.68 ± 0.50
3,5-Diethyl-2-Methylpyrazine 18138-05-1 0.26 14.03 ± 2.13 25.27 ± 2.15 10.44 ± 0.81 6.68 ± 0.36 9.71 ± 1.49 2.38 ± 0.09
2-Pentylfuran 3777-69-3 5.8 8.94 ± 1.39 10.10 ± 0.50 7.52 ± 0.48 6.05 ± 0.29 8.33 ± 0.91 11.40 ± 0.90
P-Cymene 99-87-6 11.4 0.72 ± 0.08 0.99 ± 0.08 0.64 ± 0.03 1.36 ± 0.09 0.74 ± 0.12 0.32 ± 0.02
Indole 120-72-9 11 0.91 ± 0.13 2.38 ± 0.19 1.62 ± 0.05 0.94 ± 0.07 1.00 ± 0.15 1.59 ± 0.04
Coumarin 91-64-5 11 0.23 ± 0.03 3.47 ± 0.23 0.72 ± 0.02 0.32 ± 0.02 0.77 ± 0.06 1.26 ± 0.04
Open in a new tab

2.5. Analysis of the Potential Regulatory Relationship Between Amino Acids and Tea Polyphenols on the Accumulation of Key Volatile Aromatic Compounds

To investigate whether the two major non-volatile flavor compounds in tea (amino acids and tea polyphenols) exhibit a statistically significant synergistic or antagonistic relationship with the metabolic accumulation of volatile aroma compounds, this study conducted Pearson correlation analyses between each of these two compounds and key aroma compounds with rOAV values greater than 1 (Figure 5). Given the complex substrate competition and enzymatic cascade reactions within the aroma metabolism network, statistical correlations suggest potential metabolic associations rather than direct causal relationships.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

(A) Pearson correlation analysis between amino acids and key aroma compounds. (B) Pearson correlation analysis between tea polyphenols and key aroma compounds.

Amino acid content showed a significant negative correlation with β-cyclocitral, damascone, (E)-β-damascone, and methyl salicylate. The underlying mechanism is hypothesized to involve high amino acid concentrations competing with the carotenoid degradation pathway and the phenylpropanoid pathway for shared metabolic precursors or energy carriers, thereby reducing the enzymatic production efficiency of these floral-fruity and fresh-scented compounds [48]. In contrast, amino acids showed a significant positive correlation with 2-methylbutanal, heptanal, tetradecanal, isovaleraldehyde, β-violetone, and phenethyl alcohol. This is primarily because most of the aforementioned aldehydes and alcohols are either direct products of the Strecker degradation of amino acids (such as leucine, isoleucine, and phenylalanine) during thermal processing or secondary derivatives catalyzed and promoted by amino acid metabolic intermediates. The more abundant the precursor substrates, the greater the accumulation of the corresponding products [49].

The tea polyphenol content showed a significant negative correlation with nonanal, hexanal, octanal, heptanal, safranal, 1-octen-3-one, jasmone, geraniol, 1-octen-3-ol, 2-pentylfuran, indole, and coumarin. This may be attributed to the non-competitive inhibitory effect of tea polyphenols on lipoxygenase (LOX) and the activity of its downstream cleavage enzymes, combined with the physical adsorption and acid-mediated degradation effects of polyphenolic compounds on aldehydes and ketones, thereby reducing the content of the aforementioned aroma compounds, which are primarily derived from lipid oxidation [50]. Tea polyphenols showed a significant positive correlation with 2-methylbutanal, isovaleraldehyde, linalyl acetate, linalool, (3E)-β-ocimene, α-phellandrene, and p-cymene. On the one hand, quinone intermediates formed by the oxidation of polyphenols may mediate the oxidative decarboxylation of branched-chain aldehydes [51]. On the other hand, the strong reducing properties and antioxidant protection provided by tea polyphenols can maintain the stability of unsaturated double bonds in terpenes and terpenoids, preventing premature oxidative degradation during processing and thereby showing a phenotypic association with the co-accumulation of terpenoid aroma compounds.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Main Chemicals

The main chemicals used in this study were ninhydrin (AR, 98%, Shanghai Haohong Biomedical Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China); Folin–Ciocalteu (biotechnology grade, 1 mol/L, Shanghai Eanchen Chemical Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China); L-theanine (standard products, 98%, Shanghai Eanchen Chemical Technology Co., Ltd.); and tea polyphenol (standard products, >98%, Shanghai Eanchen Chemical Technology Co., Ltd.).

The 20 mL headspace vials with 18 mm magnetic PTFE/silicone caps were acquired from Agilent Technologies Inc. (Palo Alto, CA, USA). The manual holder and divinylbenzene/carbon wide range/polydimethylsiloxane (DVB/CWR/PDMS) fiber assembly for headspace solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME) were sourced from Supelco (Bellefonte, PA, USA).

3.2. Plant Materials

In this study, six tea cultivars (HJC 1, CC4H, GZSC, QM601, SLX and SMCY) were planted at the Egongba Tea Germplasm Repository, located in Xinglong Town, Meitan County, Zunyi City, Guizhou Province (Figure A1). All tea trees used in this study were 4 years old.

3.3. Characterization of Tea Samples

Fresh tender tea shoots (one bud and one leaf) were collected in the early spring before the Qingming Festival. All samples were dried to constant weight in an oven at 103 °C, then pulverized and sieved through a 60-mesh screen for further analysis. The fresh tender tea shoots were processed into green tea using the pan-firing technique [19]. Sensory evaluation of the tea was performed in accordance with GB/T 23776-2018 (Methods for sensory evaluation of tea) [52].

The contents of tea polyphenols were determined by the spectrophotometric method specified in GB/T 8313-2018 (Determination of tea polyphenols and catechins in tea) [53]. The total free amino acid content was measured using the spectrophotometric method described in GB/T 8314-2013 (Tea-Determination of total free amino acids) [54]. The water extract content was determined in accordance with GB/T 8305-2013 (Tea-Determination of water extracts) [55].

The ratio of tea polyphenols to free amino acids (phenol-amino ratio) was calculated as follows: phenol-amino ratio = tea polyphenol content/total free amino acid content. Each experiment was repeated 3 times.

3.4. Analysis of Volatile Metabolites in Tea Samples Based on HS-SPME-GC/MS

3.4.1. Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction Conditions

We accurately weighed 1.0 g of tea powder into a 20 mL headspace vial, then added 2.5 µL of internal standard (n-pentadecane-d32, 98% purity, 50 µg/mL) and 4 mL of saturated sodium chloride aqueous solution. Equilibrate the sample at 80 °C and 500 rpm for 20 min. Then extract using a 120 µm DVB/CWR/PDMS solid-phase microextraction fiber at 80 °C and 500 rpm for 10 min. After extraction, the fiber was thermally desorbed in the GC injection port at 250 °C for 5 min.

3.4.2. Chromatographic and Mass Spectrometry Conditions

A VF-WAXms column (25 m × 0.25 mm × 0.2 µm, Agilent CP9204) was used for the analysis. The injector temperature was set to 240 °C. High-purity helium was utilized as the carrier gas at a flow rate of 1.0 mL/min, along with a septum purge flow of 3 mL/min. The oven temperature was programmed to increase from 40 °C to 120 °C at a rate of 8 °C/min, and then to 230 °C at a rate of 20 °C/min, maintaining this temperature for 4.5 min. The total run time was 20 min. Mass spectrometry was conducted in full-scan mode (m/z 35–500) using an electron impact (EI) ionization source. The ion source temperature was kept at 250 ◦C, with the electron energy set to 70 eV.

3.4.3. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods for Volatile Compounds

Volatile compounds were identified by comparing the calculated retention indices (RI, determined from n-alkanes C8–C30) with those in the standard mass spectra database (NIST-2023, GC-Orbitrap flavor and fragrances v1.0). The following formula was used to quantify the volatile compounds using the internal standard method.

Content of volatile compound (μg/kg) = S1 × m0/S0 × M

S1, peak area of each compound; S0, peak area of internal standard;

m0, the quality of the internal standard (μg); M, the quality of tea sample (g).

3.4.4. Relative Odor Activity Value

The relative odor activity value (rOAV) was used to evaluate each volatile compound’s contribution to the overall tea aroma. Based on the semi-quantitative concentrations of the volatile compounds, the flavor thresholds of volatile components in references were consulted, and the rOAV of volatile components was calculated according to formula [56]:

rOAV = C/OT

where C is the relative content of volatile compounds, μg/kg; OT is the aroma threshold of volatile compounds, μg/kg.

3.5. Statistical Analysis

Data on volatile compounds were analyzed using Excel 2024 software, with results presented as ‘mean ± standard deviation’. A bar chart was created, and Pearson correlation analysis was performed using Origin 2026SR1 software. The heatmap was generated with TBtools-IIv2.323 software, and OPLS-DA analysis was conducted using SIMCA-P 14.1 software.

4. Conclusions

In summary, the six tea cultivars from different regions showed strong quality when cultivated under the same ecological conditions in Meitan, Guizhou. Among the introduced cultivars, SMCY showed the richest floral and aromatic profiles; SLX stood out for its high concentration of floral and fruity aldehydes and esters; CC4H displayed notable roasted sweetness; and HJC1 offered the best amino acid-derived freshness. The local variety QM601 exhibits a distinct advantage in the synergistic accumulation of tea polyphenols and fruity terpenes. In contrast, GZSC, with its relatively high phenol-to-amine ratio, may be more suitable for black tea processing. The sensory evaluation results indicated that CC4H, SMCY, and HJC1 were more suitable for manufacturing premium green tea in the local area. On this basis, we recommended that tea-growing regions in Guizhou adopt a flavor-oriented, differentiated deployment of introduced cultivars to develop diverse and distinctive tea products, while also conducting genetic improvement focused on flavor harmony and ecological adaptability using local cultivars as core parental lines.

Acknowledgments

While writing this manuscript, the author used DeepL (https://www.deepl.com/) for English translation. The author has reviewed and revised the generated results and assumes full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Abbreviations

CC4H Chuancha 4
SLX Shilixiang
SMCY Siming Cuiya
HJC1 Huangjincha 1
QM601 Qianmei 601
GZSC Guizhou Zise Tea
HS-SPME headspace solid-phase microextraction
GC/MS gas chromatography-mass spectrometry
DVB/CWR/PDMS divinylbenzene/carbon wide range/polydimethylsiloxane
rOAV the relative odor activity value
OPLS-DA Orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis
Open in a new tab

Appendix A

Figure A1.

Figure A1

Open in a new tab

Morphological phenotypes of 6 tea cultivars ((A): CC4H, (B): SLX, (C): SMCY, (D): HJC1, (E): QM601, (F): GZSC).

Table A1.

Sources of aroma descriptions and thresholds for key volatile compounds.

Metabolite Odor CAS ID Threshold (μg/L or μg/kg) References
Nonanal waxy; fatty; citrus; rose; fat; orange peel; grapefruit; green; fish; fresh; orris; aldehydic; lime 124-19-6 1.1 [57]
Hexanal fatty; leafy; fat; sweaty; green; tallow; fresh; grass; aldehydic; fruity 66-25-1 4.5 [58]
β-Cyclocitral rose oxide; tobacco; sweet; saffron; tropical; minty; clean; herbal; damascone; mint; fruity 432-25-7 3 [59]
Benzaldehyde cherry; vanilla; almond; fruity; sweet; caramel; sharp; strong; bitter; bitter almond 100-52-7 0.024 [60]
2-Methylbutyraldehyde coffee; malty; almond; musty; cocoa; nutty 96-17-3 1.5 [61]
Octanal waxy; lemon; fatty; citrus; fat; orange peel; green; aldehydic; soapy 124-13-0 0.8 [59]
Heptanal fatty; citrus; wine-lee; fat; rancid; ozone; green; herbal; fresh; aldehydic 111-71-7 2.8 [59]
Tetradecanal dry; musky; flower; fatty; waxy; incense; wax; citrus peel 124-25-4 67 [62]
Safranal phenolic; spicy; tobacco; sweet; metallic; herbal; fresh; rosemary 116-26-7 3 [58]
Isovaleraldehyde fatty; peach; malty; chocolate; sour; aldehydic 590-86-3 0.5 [61]
Decanal waxy; citrus; sweet; orange peel; tallow; aldehydic; soapy 112-31-2 3 [59]
1-Octen-3-One mushroom; earthy; metallic; musty; dirty; herbal 4312-99-6 0.003 [63]
Jasmone spicy; jasmine; celery; herbal; woody; jasmine 488-10-8 1.9 [59]
β-Ionone dry; flower; powdery; jam; seaweed; violet; orange; woody; orris; raspberry 79-77-6 0.021 [61]
2,3-Octanedione cooked; buttery; broccoli; dill 585-25-1 12 [62]
Damascenone apple; tobacco; rose; smoke; honey; sweet; apple. rose 23726-93-4 0.006 [61]
(E)- β-Damascone apple; tobacco; rose; plum; honey; blackcurrant; berry; fruity 23726-91-2 0.001 [40]
(E, E)-3,5-Octadien-2-One grassy; mushroom; fatty; fruity; green 38284-27-4 0.1 [64]
Methyl Salicylate wintergreen; minty; peppermint 119-36-8 40 [59]
Linalyl Acetate citrus; sweet; lavender; fruity; green; bergamot; woody 115-95-7 0.1109 [65]
Methyl Nonanoate waxy; coconut; sweet; pear; tropical; fruity; wine 1731-84-6 0.04 [59]
Phenylethyl Alcohol lilac; rose flower; rose water; honey; rose; rose dried; bitter; spice 20-12-8 564.23 [59]
Geraniol waxy; citrus; rose; geranium; sweet; fruity 106-24-1 6.6 [59]
Linalool flower; lemon; citrus; sweet; lavender; green; orange; woody; blueberry 78-70-6 6 [59]
1-Octen-3-Ol fungal; mushroom; earthy; raw; green; fish; chicken; oily 3391-86-4 1.5 [59]
(3E)-β-Ocimene woody; citrus; herbal; tropical; green; sweet; terpene 13877-91-3 0.02 [66]
α-Phellandrene citrus; peppery; green; turpentine; woody; herbal; terpene; minty; spice 99-83-2 0.04 [67]
3-Ethyl-2,5-Dimethylpyrazine cocoa; nutty; potato; roast; roasted 13360-65-1 25 [61]
2-Ethyl-5-Methylpyrazine sweet; bean; fruity; coffee 13360-64-0 16 [61]
2,5-Diethylpyrazine - 13238-84-1 0.02 [61]
2,3-Diethyl-5-Methylpyrazine vegetable; wine; earthy; meat; potato; citrus; fatty; roast; musty; herbal; nutty; spicy; green; hazelnut; woody; fruity; meaty 18138-04-0 0.031 [61]
3,5-Diethyl-2-Methylpyrazine vegetable; nutty; roast; meaty 18138-05-1 0.26 [61]
2-Pentylfuran buttery; earthy; metallic; green bean; green; vegetable; fruity; beany 3777-69-3 5.8 [61]
P-Cymene solvent; citrus; gasoline; terpene; woody; fresh; spice 99-87-6 11.4 [58]
Indole fecal; moth ball; fish; jasmine; honey; animal; naphthelene; mothball; burnt 120-72-9 11 [59]
Coumarin bitter; sweet; green; new mown hay 91-64-5 11 [61]
Open in a new tab

Author Contributions

M.G.: Investigation, methodology, formal analysis, data curation, writing—original draft, and funding acquisition; K.Z.: experimental sample processing, investigation, methodology, data curation; M.G. and K.Z.: Sample, tea processing, resources; H.W.: methodology and validation, data curation; H.S.: funding acquisition and project administration, writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by Zunyi Municipal Bureau of Industry, Science and Technology (Zunyi Kehe HZ Zi (2024) No. 335), Zunyi Municipal Bureau of Industry, Science and Technology (Zunyi Kehe HZ Zi (2022) No. 410), Guizhou Provincial Department of Science and Technology (Qian Ke He Platform Talents [2021] 1350-070), Zunyi Medical University (Doctoral Research Fund, No. ZMUDRF2025-19), and Guizhou Provincial Department of Science and Technology (Qian Ke He Ji Chu [2026] 002-55).

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

References

  • 1.Wu T., He J., Deng X., Wang X., Yuan W., Wang Q., Chen X., Zou M., An H., Wang B., et al. Influencing factors and regulatory mechanisms of fresh tea leaf quality: A review. Foods. 2025;14:3268. doi: 10.3390/foods14183268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ahmed S., Griffin T.S., Kraner D., Schaffner M.K., Sharma D., Hazel M., Leitch A.R., Orians C.M., Han W., Stepp J.R., et al. Environmental factors variably impact tea secondary metabolites in the context of climate change. Front. Plant Sci. 2019;10:939. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00939. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bassiony A., Peng Q., Baldermann S., Feng S., Yang K., Zhang Y., Fu J., Lv H., Lin Z., Shi J. Differential accumulation patterns of flavor compounds in longjing 43 and qunti fresh leaves and during processing responding to altitude changes. Food Res. Int. 2024;187:114392. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2024.114392. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wang M., Yang J., Li J., Zhou X., Xiao Y., Liao Y., Tang J., Dong F., Zeng L. Effects of temperature and light on quality-related metabolites in tea [Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze] leaves. Food Res. Int. 2022;161:111882. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2022.111882. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Stilo F., Tredici G., Bicchi C., Robbat A.J., Morimoto J., Cordero C. Climate and processing effects on tea (Camellia sinensis L. Kuntze) metabolome: Accurate profiling and fingerprinting by comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Molecules. 2020;25:2447. doi: 10.3390/molecules25102447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Xie L., Li W., Pang X., Liu Q., Yin C. Soil properties and root traits are important factors driving rhizosphere soil bacterial and fungal community variations in alpine rhododendron nitidulum shrub ecosystems along an altitudinal gradient. Sci. Total Environ. 2023;864:161048. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wang Y., Niu S., Deng X., Bai D., Chen Z., Deng X., Huang D. Genome-wide association study, population structure, and genetic diversity of the tea plant in Guizhou Plateau. BMC Plant Biol. 2024;24:79. doi: 10.1186/s12870-024-04761-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zeng L., Zhou X., Liao Y., Yang Z. Roles of specialized metabolites in biological function and environmental adaptability of tea plant (Camellia sinensis) as a metabolite studying model. J. Adv. Res. 2020;34:159–171. doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2020.11.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wang Y., Zhang Y., Wang L., He M., Wu L., Liu G., Wang Y., Wang L., Wei K. Analysis of the synergistic effects of tea cultivars and regional environments on metabolic phenotypes. Food Res. Int. 2026;231:118790. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2026.118790. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Li Y., He C., Yu X., Zhou J., Ran W., Chen Y., Ni D. Effects of red-light withering on the taste of black tea as revealed by non-targeted metabolomics and transcriptomics analysis. LWT—Food Sci. Technol. 2021;147:111620. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2021.111620. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Deng S., Zhang G., Aluko O.O., Mo Z., Mao J., Zhang H., Liu X., Ma M., Wang Q., Liu H. Bitter and astringent substances in green tea: Composition, human perception mechanisms, evaluation methods and factors influencing their formation. Food Res. Int. 2022;157:111262. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2022.111262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Zaman F., Zhang E., Xia L., Deng X., Ilyas M., Ali A., Guo F., Wang P., Wang M., Wang Y., et al. Natural variation of main biochemical components, morphological and yield traits among a panel of 87 tea [Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze] cultivars. Hortic. Plant J. 2023;8:563–576. doi: 10.1016/j.hpj.2022.08.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yu X., Li Y., He C., Zhou J., Chen Y., Yu Z., Ni D. Nonvolatile metabolism in postharvest tea (Camellia sinensis L.) leaves: Effects of different withering treatments on nonvolatile metabolites, gene expression levels, and enzyme activity. Food Chem. 2020;327:126998. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.126992. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hu S., He C., Li Y., Yu Z., Chen Y., Wang Y., Ni D. Changes of fungal community and non-volatile metabolites during pile-fermentation of dark green tea. Food Res. Int. 2021;147:110472. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110472. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chen D., Sun Z., Gao J., Peng J., Wang P., Zhao Y., Dai W. Metabolomics combined with proteomics provides a novel interpretation of the compound differences among Chinese tea cultivars (Camellia sinensis var. sinensis) with different manufacturing suitabilities. Food Chem. 2021;348:131976. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.131976. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Xu Y.Q., Zhang Y.N., Chen J.X., Wang F., Du Q.Z., Yin J.F. Quantitative analyses of the bitterness and astringency of catechins from green tea. Food Chem. 2018;258:16–24. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.03.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tan X., Huang J., Fan H., Tang Q. Study on the main biochemical components of CH-1 and the suitability of green tea. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020;768:022003. doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/740/1/012192. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wang Y., Fang M., Zheng S., Cho J., Yi T. Identification of Chinese Green Tea (Camellia sinensis) Marker Metabolites Using GC/MS and UPLC-QTOF/MS. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2021;30:1063–1071. doi: 10.1007/s10068-021-00970-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Li Y.C., Ran W., He C., Zhou J.T., Chen Y.Q., Yu Z., Ni D.J. Effects of Different Tea Tree Cultivars on the Color, Aroma, and Taste of Chinese Enshi Green Tea. Food Chem. X. 2022;14:100289. doi: 10.1016/j.fochx.2022.100289. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ma L., Cao D., Liu Y., Gong Z., Liu P., Jin X. A comparative analysis of the volatile components of green tea produced from various tea cultivars in China. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2019;443:451–463. doi: 10.3906/tar-1807-155. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.He Y., Liu S., Kang Y., Periakaruppan R., Zhuang J., Wang Y., Chen X., Liu X., Li X. The light-intensity-affected aroma components of green tea during leaf spreading. Foods. 2024;13:2349. doi: 10.3390/foods13152349. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wang M.Q., Ma W.J., Shi J., Zhu Y., Lin Z., Lv H.P. Characterization of the key aroma compounds in Longjing tea using stir bar sorptive extraction (SBSE) combined with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), gas chromatography-olfactometry (GC-O), odor activity value (OAV), and aroma recombination. Food Res. Int. 2020;130:108901. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Zou Y., Tang C., Yang X.Y., Guo T.Y., Song H.L. Discovery and Flavor Characterization of High-Grade Markers in Baked Green Tea. Molecules. 2023;28:2462. doi: 10.3390/molecules28062462. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hou Z.W., Chen Z.Y., Li L., Chen H.P., Zhang H.Y., Liu S.T., Zhang R., Song Q.Y., Chen Y.X., Su Z.C., et al. Comparison of Volatile Compounds in Jingshan Green Tea Scented with Different Flowers Using GC-IMS and GC-MS Analyses. Foods. 2024;13:2653. doi: 10.3390/foods13172653. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Shi Y.L., Zhu Y., Ma W.J., Lin Z., Lv H.P. Characterisation of the Volatile Compounds Profile of Chinese Pan-Fried Green Tea in Comparison with Baked Green Tea, Steamed Green Tea, and Sun-Dried Green Tea Using Approaches of Molecular Sensory Science. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 2022;5:1098–1107. doi: 10.1016/j.crfs.2022.06.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Tang J.H., Hu J.J., Zhou X.X., Wang Q.W., Jiang Y.W., Yuan H.B., Wang Y.J., Yang Y.Q. Influence of Different Shaping Techniques on the Aroma Quality and Volatile Metabolites of Green Tea Revealed by Gas Chromatography Electronic Nose and Gas Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry. Foods. 2025;14:816. doi: 10.3390/foods14050816. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Jiang R.G., Chen H.Y., Ouyang J., Xu H., Wang K.F., Ou X.C., Peng Y., Chen J.H., Liu Z.H., Huang J.N. Characterization of the Key Aroma Compounds in Baojing Huangjincha 1 Green Tea through Molecular Docking and Molecular Sensory Science. Food Res. Int. 2026;235:119258. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2026.119258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Niu X.J., Ao C., Yu J.Z., Zhao Y., Huang H.T. GC-MS Combined with Proteomic Analysis of Volatile Compounds and Formation Mechanisms in Green Teas with Different Aroma Types. Foods. 2024;13:1848. doi: 10.3390/foods13121848. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wang Q.W., Xie J.L., Wang L.L., Jiang Y.W., Deng Y.L., Zhu J.Y., Yuan H.B., Yang Y.Q. Comprehensive Investigation on the Dynamic Changes of Volatile Metabolites in Fresh Scent Green Tea during Processing by GC-E-Nose, GC-MS, and GC × GC-TOFMS. Food Res. Int. 2024;187:114330. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2024.114330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wang C.M., Tan X.Q., Du X., Hu J.J., Li X.Y., Yan L.S., Zhang X., Nie C.N., Chen L.Y., Du F., et al. Dynamic Changes and Interaction between Different Aroma Types during Low-Temperature Roasting of Bud Green Tea. Food Sci. Nutr. 2024;12:6367–6378. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.4249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wen S., Sun L.L., Zhang S.W., Chen Z.Z., Chen R.H., Li Z.G., Lai X.F., Zhang Z.B., Cao J.X., Li Q., et al. The Formation Mechanism of Aroma Quality of Green and Yellow Teas Based on GC-MS/MS Metabolomics. Food Res. Int. 2023;172:113137. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2023.113137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Wang J.Q., Gao Y., Chen J.X., Wang F., Ma Y.Y., Feng Z.H., Yin J.F., Zeng L., Zhou W., Xu Y.Q. Roasting Pretreatment Reduces Retort Odor Formation in Green Tea Beverages: Evidence from Chemometrics and Sensory Evaluation. Food Chem. X. 2025;30:102950. doi: 10.1016/j.fochx.2025.102950. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Chen J., Li Z.Q., Zhang S.Y., Cheng Z.L., Wu L., Dai X.Q., Yang J.G., Yao X.Z., Lu L.T. The Key Quality Components in Fenggang Green Tea with Different Zinc Content and Their Correlations with Zinc. Food Res. Int. 2025;208:116195. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2025.116195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Wu X.Q., Zhou S., Huang X.R., He L., Wang D., Wu F., Luo L.L., Liu Y., Zeng L. Characterization of the Key Odorants in Milky Aroma Small-Leaf Yellow Tea and Their Dynamic Changes during Processing Based on SAFE-GC-MS/O, OAV, Aroma Recombination and Omission. Food Chem. 2026;517:149482. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2026.149482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Deng Y.Z., Li C., Chen Y.N., Zou Z.Y., Gong J.Y., Shen C.W., Fang K. Chemical Profile and Aroma Effects of Major Volatile Compounds in New Mulberry Leaf Fu Brick Tea and Traditional Fu Brick Tea. Foods. 2024;13:1808. doi: 10.3390/foods13121808. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Xu S., Song L.Y., Zhao Y.C., Zhao D.G. Effects of Solid-State Fermentation with Eurotium cristatum on the Physicochemical, Sensory, and Volatile Profiles of Summer–Autumn Green Tea. Foods. 2025;14:3681. doi: 10.3390/foods14213681. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Huo H.Z., Cai A.H., Xie Y.C., Guo C.Y. Changes in Flavor Quality of Raw Liupao Tea during the Piling Process. Heliyon. 2024;10:e40175. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e40175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Li Y.F., Han Z., Wang M., Yan Y.X., Ma R.H., Wang H.P., Deng W.W. Metabolomics and Sensory Evaluation Reveal the Influence of Four Albino Tea Cultivars on the Quality of Processed Green Tea. Food Res. Int. 2025;209:116180. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2025.116180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Huang W.J., Liu Q.Y., Ning J.M. Effect of Tea Stems on the Quality Formation of Large-Leaf Yellow Tea: Sensomics and Flavoromics Approaches. Food Chem. X. 2024;24:101794. doi: 10.1016/j.fochx.2024.101794. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Xue Y., Chen G., Zhang J., Zhu G., Zheng X., Xie H., Wang Z., Li D., Huang J., Liu Z., et al. Cultivar-Specific Aroma Divergence in Multi-Type Teas: Comparative Study of Five Cultivars Processed into Green, White, and Black Teas. Food Chem. X. 2026;34:103498. doi: 10.1016/j.fochx.2026.103498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Wang J.Q., Tang B.M., Gao Y., Chen J.X., Wang F., Yin J.F., Zeng L., Zhou W.B., Xu Y.Q. Impact of Heat Treatment on the Flavor Stability of Longjing Green Tea Beverages: Metabolomic Insights and Sensory Correlations. Food Res. Int. 2024;193:114867. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2024.114867. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Zhou M., Deng X.J., Wang Q.M., Wei Z.Z., Wang X.H., Yuan W.X., Li L.M., Zou M., Liu W.H., Lu S.J., et al. Flavor Characteristics of Sun-Dried Green Tea in Different Regions of Yunnan: Metabolite Basis and Soil Influencing Factors. Foods. 2025;14:1280. doi: 10.3390/foods14071280. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Zou L., Sheng C.Y., Xia D.Z., Zhang J.X., Wei Y.M., Ning J.M. Mechanism of Aroma Formation in White Tea Treated with Solar Withering. Food Res. Int. 2024;194:114917. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2024.114917. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Yang Y.Q., Xie J.L., Wang Q.W., Wang L.L., Shang Y., Jiang Y.W., Yuan H.B. Volatolomics-Assisted Characterization of the Key Odorants in Green Off-Flavor Black Tea and Their Dynamic Changes during Processing. Food Chem. X. 2024;22:101432. doi: 10.1016/j.fochx.2024.101432. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.He C., Li Y.C., Zhou J.T., Yu X.L., Zhang D., Chen Y.Q., Ni D.J., Yu Z. Study on the Suitability of Tea Cultivars for Processing Oolong Tea from the Perspective of Aroma Based on Olfactory Sensory, Electronic Nose, and GC-MS Data Correlation Analysis. Foods. 2022;11:2880. doi: 10.3390/foods11182880. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Yang Y.Q., Zhu H.K., Chen J.Y., Xie J.L., Shen S., Deng Y.L., Zhu J., Yuan H., Jiang Y. Characterization of the Key Aroma Compounds in Black Teas with Different Aroma Types by Using Gas Chromatography Electronic Nose, Gas Chromatography-Ion Mobility Spectrometry, and Odor Activity Value Analysis. LWT—Food Sci. Technol. 2022;163:113492. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2022.113492. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Guo X., Ho C., Wan X., Zhu H., Liu Q., Wen Z. Changes of Volatile Compounds and Odor Profiles in Wuyi Rock Tea during Processing. Food Chem. 2021;341:128230. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.128230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Maoz I., Lewinsohn E., Gonda I. Amino acids metabolism as a source for aroma volatiles biosynthesis. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2022;67:102221. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2022.102221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Wang Y., Li X., Kong Y., Lin C., Li X., Zeng X., Li H., Liu W., Gong H., Fan X. Effects of baking and steaming on volatile and non-volatile metabolites in Yanshu 25 juice before and after fermentation. Food Res. Int. 2026;223:117917. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2025.117917. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Habza-Kowalska E., Gawlik-Dziki U., Dziki D. Mechanism of Action and Interactions between Thyroid Peroxidase and Lipoxygenase Inhibitors Derived from Plant Sources. Biomolecules. 2019;9:663. doi: 10.3390/biom9110663. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Zha M., Lian L., Wen M., Ercisli S., Ren Y., Jiang Z., Ho C.-T., Zhang L. The Oxidation Mechanism of Flavan-3-ols by an Enzymatic Reaction Using Liquid Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry-Based Metabolomics Combined with Captured o-Quinone Intermediates of Flavan-3-ols by o-Phenylenediamine. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2022;70:5715–5727. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.2c01416. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Methods for Sensory Evaluation of Tea. Standards Press of China; Beijing, China: 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Determination of Total Polyphenols and Catechins Content in Tea. Standards Press of China; Beijing, China: 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Tea—Determination of Free Amino Acids Content. Standards Press of China; Beijing, China: 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Tea—Determination of Water Extracts Content. Standards Press of China; Beijing, China: 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Li Q., Zhang C., Liu W., Li B., Chen S., Wang H., Li Y., Li J. Characterization and exploration of dynamic variation of volatile compounds in vine tea during processing by GC-IMS and HS-SPME/GC-MS combined with machine learning algorithm. Food Chem. 2024;460:140580. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.140580. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Chen H.Y., Ying J.Q., An H.M., Chen Y., Huang Y.W., Jiang Y.C., Wang S.R., Bai S.L., Li S., Huang J.A., et al. Chinese Jasmine Tea: The Harmonious Intertwining of Tea and Jasmine Fragrance. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2025;24:e70210. doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.70210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Xu J., Zhang Y., Yan F., Tang Y., Yu B., Chen B., Lu L., Yuan L., Wu Z., Chen H. Monitoring Changes in the Volatile Compounds of Tea Made from Summer Tea Leaves by GC-IMS and HS-SPME-GC-MS. Foods. 2022;12:146. doi: 10.3390/foods12010146. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Chen H., Jiang R., An H., Xu H., Ou X., Wang K., Chen Y., Jiang Y., Li S., Huang J., et al. Characterization of key odor-active volatiles in jasmine green tea by sensomics and chemometrics. Food Chem. X. 2026;34:103695. doi: 10.1016/j.fochx.2026.103695. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Guo X., Schwab W., Ho C.T., Song C., Wan X. Characterization of the aroma profiles475 of oolong tea made from three tea cultivars by both GC-MS and GC-IMS. Food Chem. 2022;376:131933. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.131933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Cui L., Wang X., He C., Liu Z., Liang J. Effect of puffing treatment on volatile components of green tea explored by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and gas chromatography-olfactometry. Food Chem. X. 2024;23:101746. doi: 10.1016/j.fochx.2024.101746. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Li H., Chen J., Zhang Y., Jiang Y., Sun D., Piao C., Li T., Wang J., Li H., Mu B., et al. Evaluation of the flavor profiles of Yanbian-style sauced beef from differently treated raw beef samples. Food Chem. X. 2024;22:101505. doi: 10.1016/j.fochx.2024.101505. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Sacks D., Baxter B., Campbell B.C.V., Carpenter J.S., Cognard C., Dippel D., Eesa M., Fischer U., Hausegger K., Hirsch J.A., et al. Multisociety Consensus Quality Improvement Revised Consensus Statement for Endovascular Therapy of Acute Ischemic Stroke. Int. J. Stroke Off. J. Int. Stroke Soc. 2018;13:612–632. doi: 10.1177/1747493018778713. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Wang D., Wang C., Su W., Lin C.C., Liu W., Liu Y., Ni L., Liu Z. Characterization of the Key Aroma Compounds in Dong Ding Oolong Tea by Application of the Sensomics Approach. Foods. 2023;12:3158. doi: 10.3390/foods12173158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Elsharif S.A., Banerjee A., Buettner A. Structure-odor relationships of linalool, linalyl acetate and their corresponding oxygenated derivatives. Front. Chem. 2015;3:57. doi: 10.3389/fchem.2015.00057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Ye F., Gui A., Qiao X., Liu P., Wang X., Wang S., Feng L., Teng J., Xue J., Chen X., et al. Effects of Roasting Process on Sensory Qualities, Color, Physicochemical Components, and Identification of Key Aroma Compounds in Hubei Strip-Shaped Green Tea. Metabolites. 2025;15:155. doi: 10.3390/metabo15030155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Zhao Z., Hao Y., Liu Y., Shi Y., Lin X., Wang L., Wen P., Hu X., Li J. Comprehensive evaluation of aroma and taste properties of different parts from the wampee fruit. Food Chem. X. 2023;19:100835. doi: 10.1016/j.fochx.2023.100835. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Articles from Molecules are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES