Abstract
A total of 98 compounds including 20 aldehydes, eight arenes, six acids, 17 alcohols, 13 ketones, nine esters, nine methoxyphenolics, three alkenes, seven alkanes, and six other components were tentatively identified in six Chinese dark teas (CDTs) using gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Multivariate statistical analysis revealed that dark teas from Yunnan and Guangxi provinces could be classified into one group, and other CDTs belonged to the other cluster. The diagnostic volatile compounds being responsible for CDTs' discrimination were observed as (E,E)-2,4-decadienal, methoxyphenolics, geraniol, α-terpineol, 2,4-heptadienal, cis-jasmone, linalool oxides, and 2-nonenal. Furthermore, mature tea leaves were separately fermented using Eurotium cristatum and Aspergillus niger. The results showed that E. cristatum increased the contents of cis-jasmone, α-terpineol, ß-ionone, nonanal, and 2-pentylfuran, whereas A. niger advanced the levels of geraniol, linalool oxides, 9,12-octadecadienoic acid, and ß-ionone after short-term fermentation. Fungus species may contribute to forming the flavor of Chinese dark teas by affecting the volatile compounds during postfermentation.
Keywords: Aspergillus niger, Eurotium cristatum, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, methoxyphenolic compounds, Pu-erh tea
1. Introduction
Chinese dark tea (CDT) is a type of postfermented tea product from Southwestern China. CDTs usually possess significant geographical features. For example, ripened pu-erh tea is the typical CDT in Yunnan province. Furthermore, there are other famous CDTs in different regions, such as Ya'an Tibet tea (Sichuan dark tea; SCDT), Liubao tea (Guangxi dark tea; GXDT), Jingweifu tea (Shaanxi dark tea; SXDT), Fu-brick tea (Hunan dark tea; HNDT), and Qingzhuan tea (Hubei dark tea, HBDT) [1]. CDTs have been favored by the consumers because of their special flavors. They also contain some specific chemical constituents different from other unfermented or semi-fermented teas, such as green tea and oolong tea [2]. It has been reported that postfermentation produced the special secondary metabolites of dark teas [3]. Fungal fermentation could transfer the flavan-3-ols and L-theanine into 8-C-N-ethyl-2-pyrrolidinone substituted flavan-3-ols [4]. Also, the primary fungus is able to play an important role in the transformation of catechins during postfermentation [5]. Furthermore, some other B-ring oxidized flavan-3-ols have been identified in fu-brick tea [6]. These unique metabolites of catechins of CDTs are highly depended on the fermentation process and predominant fungi.
Traditionally, tea was classified according to the critical manufacture process, to be exact, the fermentation technology. For example, it could be classified as unfermented, semifermented, fully-fermented, and postfermented teas [7]. Fully-fermented tea (black tea) is oxidized by polyphenol oxidase(s) of tea leaves. The postfermentation process of CDTs could be depicted as a piling solid-state fermentation of deactivated tea leaves under natural or controlled conditions [8]. Some studies have demonstrated that there are multiple fungi species involved in postfermentation [9]. Different from other teas, the dark teas are more complicated in terms of flavor compounds because the tea ingredients can be highly affected by environmental microorganisms, temperature, and humidity.
To chemically distinguish CDTs, liquid chromatography coupled mass spectrometry combining metabolomics analysis has been applied in the reclassification of various CDTs [10]. The volatile compounds of some CDTs have been studied by comparing the teas' flavor compounds before and after postfermentation. It has been reported that methoxyphenolic compounds were the main volatile compounds of ripened pu-erh tea [11,12]. It was suggested that methoxyphenolic compounds were the metabolites of gallic acid and tannins after postfermentation. Furthermore, other types of CDTs, such as fu-brick tea, contained a high content of limonene. The unsaturated hydrocarbons in fu-brick tea usually gave a woody and fruity fragrance [13].
Although there are some studies regarding the volatile compounds of pu-erh tea and fu-brick tea, the systematic comparative study on various CDTs is still lacking. Furthermore, the effects of predominant microorganisms on the formation of the unique flavor of CDTs have not been studied in depth. Metabolomics has become a robust tool of non-targeted analysis of plant and bio-samples [14]. Integrative gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and liquid chromatography coupled mass spectrometry analysis has been successfully applied in the research of primary and secondary metabolites in tea plants. Through the multivariate analysis, some marker volatile compounds were identified in different types of CDTs [10]. During the postfermentation, the fungi are very important for the transformation of compounds of CDTs. For example, Aspergillus niger is an important and main microorganism in the long-term fermentation of many CDTs rather fu-brick tea. Although the fungal fermentation caused a significant change of flavor in dark tea, very little is known about the effects of fungus on the transformation of raw volatile compounds of CDTs. In addition, the distinct aroma of CDT is a reflection of hundreds of chemicals, rather than a single flavor-active compound.
To explore the volatile compound profiling of different CDTs, a simultaneous distillation extraction (SDE) was used to extract the volatile compounds of tea samples, and subsequently subject to GC-MS analysis. The marker volatile compounds being responsible for the classification of various CDTs were characterized. Solid-state fermentation of deactivated tea leaves was also conducted by single fungus to study the trajectory of volatile compounds.
2. Methods
2.1. Tea samples
Yunnan dark tea (YNDT; pu-erh tea) was purchased from the Xishuangbanna, Yunnan province. HNDT (fu-brick tea) was purchased from the Anhua, Hunan province. HBDT (Qingzhuan tea) was produced in Chibi, Hubei province. GXDT (Liubao tea) was produced in Wuzhou, Guangxi province. SCDT (Tibet tea) was produced in Ya'an, Sichuan province. SXDT (Jingweifu tea) was produced in Xianyang, Shaanxi province. The green tea sample was used as control in the present study. Furthermore, the mature tea leaves of Camellia sinensis were used as the raw material for solid-state fermentation of single fungus.
2.2. Sample preparation
Six kinds of CDTs were extracted using SDE method. Briefly, for each kind of CDT, 15 g of tea leaves were placed in a 1-L flat-bottom flask containing 300 mL of boiling distilled water and immediately attached to the SDE apparatus. The flat-bottom flask containing tea was on one side of the Likens-Nickerson apparatus, and the flask containing solvents was on the other side. The solvent and tea infusions were heated via hot plates. Volatile compounds were extracted using diethyl ether for 90 minutes with three replications. After extraction, the extracts were dried using a small amount of anhydrous sodium sulfate and subsequently filtered. Then, the extract was concentrated to 1 mL. This concentrate was used for GC-MS.
During the SDE, 50 μL of ethyl decanoate was added into the tea sample as an internal standard, with the final concentration of 2.78 μg/g. The relative contents of volatile compounds were calculated with reference to the internal standard. For each tea sample, analysis was conducted in triplicate.
2.3. The solid-state fermentation by A. niger and E. cristatum
The solid-state fermentation of tea leaves single fungus referenced our previous study [5]. In brief, 5 mL of A. niger and E. cristatum spore suspension was incubated in potato dextrose agar plates with concentrations of 3.0–4.0 × 105/mL and 9.0–10.0 × 103/mL, respectively. The incubation condition was set at 30°C and 95% relative humidity. After 48 hours of enrichment culture, 15 g of mature tea leaves were added to the culture plate for fermentation test. At 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours, 96 hours, 120 hours, and 144 hours post-fermentation, the whole samples in one plate were collected and extracted using SDE method. The volatile compounds were analyzed using GC-MS. Before this experiment, the mature tea leaves were deactivated by heating. Each sample was prepared in duplicate.
2.4. GC-MS analysis
To analyze volatile compounds of CDTs, an Agilent 7890A gas chromatograph coupled with an Agilent 5975C mass spectrometer was used to perform the volatile analysis (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). An HP-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm; Agilent Technologies) was equipped, with purified helium as the carrier gas, at a constant flow rate of 1 mL/min. The oven temperature was held at 60°C for 3 minutes and then increased to 210°C at a rate of 1°C/min, and then held at 210°C for 2 minutes, and then increased to 270°C at a rate of 5°C/min and held at 270°C for 7 minutes. Ion source temperature was at 250°C and spectra was produced in the electron impact mode at 70 eV. Mass ranged from m/z 40 m/z to 600 m/z.
The fermented tea samples by A. niger and E. cristatum were also extracted as above-mentioned. The extracted volatile compounds of fermented tea were also injected in to GC-MS for analysis.
The volatile compounds were identified by using the deconvolution reporting software in combination with National Institute of Standards and Technology 98Las well as by comparison of their retention indexes with literature data or National Institute of Standards and Technology database. The relative proportions of the constituents were obtained by flame ionization detector peak area normalization. To calculate the Kovats retention index (RI) for each peak, 1 mL n-alkane mixture (C7–C40; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, Mo, USA) was injected under the same GC-MS conditions. RI was calculated using the following equation:
| (1) |
where tx is the retention time, n and n + 1 are respectively the number of carbon atoms in the alkanes eluting before and after the compound X.
2.5. Multivariate data analysis
The GC-MS data of CDTs samples was analyzed to identify potential discriminant variables. A list of the intensities of the detected peaks was generated for each sample, using retention time (tR) and the m/z data pairs as the identifier for each peak. The resulting three-dimensional matrix containing arbitrarily assigned peak index (retention time-m/z pairs), sample names (observations), and peak intensity information (variables) was exported to SIMCA-P software 12.0 (Umetrics, Umea, Sweden) for principle components analysis (PCA), partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA), and orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA). The multivariate statistics for GC-MS-based metabolic profiling was performed with the method previously reported [10].
3. Results
3.1. The volatile compounds of various CDTs
The GC–MS chromatograms of the flavor profiles of various CDTs are shown in Figure 1. In total, major volatile compounds were identified in six types of Chinese dark tea as shown in Table 1.
Figure 1.
The representative total ion current chromatograms of various Chinese dark teas using gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. GXDT = Guangxi dark tea; HBDT =Hubei dark tea; HNDT =Hunan dark tea; SCDT =Sichuan dark tea; SXDT =Shanxi dark tea; YNDT =Yunnan dark tea.
Table 1.
Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry analysis results of volatile compounds in six types of Chinese dark teas samples.
| No. | RT. (min) | RIa | RIb | Compounds | Relative contentc (μg/g, mean ± S.D; n = 3) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||
| SCDT | HBDT | YNDT | HNDT | GXDT | SXDT | GT | |||||
| 1 | 4.259 | n.d. | n.d. | (E)-2-hexenal | 0.488 ± 0.127 | 0.274 ± 0.026 | 0.048 ± 0.008 | 0.192 ± 0.040 | 0.096 ± 0.056 | 0.077 ± 0.027 | 0.137 ± 0.033 |
| 2 | 5.283 | n.d. | n.d. | Heptanal | 0.538 ± 0.118 | 0.353 ± 0.055 | 0.050 ± 0.007 | 0.232 ± 0.051 | n.d. | 0.119 ± 0.004 | 0.383 ± 0.070 |
| 3 | 6.714 | 953 | 960 | 2-heptenal | 0.160 ± 0.052 | 0.160 ± 0.192 | n.d.e | 0.126 ± 0.127 | n.d. | 0.054 ± 0.064 | n.d. |
| 4 | 6.867 | 958 | 963 | Benzaldehyde | 0.930 ± 0.007 | 0.304 ± 0.064 | 0.350 ± 0.037 | 0.294 ± 0.019 | 0.284 ± 0.016 | 0.138 ± 0.019 | 0.141 ± 0.023 |
| 5 | 7.879 | 996 | 982 | (E,E)-2,4-heptadienal | 2.845 ± 0.302 | 0.552 ± 0.325 | 0.037 ± 0.010 | 0.383 ± 0.009 | 0.048 ± 0.001 | 0.070 ± 0.004 | 0.063 ± 0.019 |
| 6 | 8.311 | 1009 | 1012 | 2,4-heptadienal | 2.130 ± 0.073 | 0.616 ± 0.113 | 0.071 ± 0.007 | 0.485 ± 0.032 | 0.080 ± 0.009 | 0.106 ± 0.006 | 0.130 ± 0.023 |
| 7 | 9.380 | 1042 | 1048 | Benzene acetaldehyde | 0.830 ± 0.174 | 0.484 ± 0.078 | 1.132 ± 0.059 | 0.360 ± 0.051 | 0.804 ± 0.046 | 0.229 ± 0.017 | 0.195 ± 0.039 |
| 8 | 9.819 | 1056 | 1060 | 2-octenal | 0.371 ± 0.276 | 0.318 ± 0.139 | 0.027 | 0.216 ± 0.028 | n.d. | 0.036 ± 0.007 | 0.099 ± 0.036 |
| 9 | 11.371 | 1104 | 1104 | Nonanal | 1.266 ± 0.015 | 0.698 ± 0.118 | 0.109 ± 0.005 | 0.364 ± 0.030 | 0.017 ± 0.007 | 0.258 ± 0.017 | 0.440 ± 0.056 |
| 10 | 13.242 | 1158 | 1151 | 2-nonenal | 0.284 ± 0.013 | 0.170 ± 0.027 | n.d. | 0.077 ± 0.012 | n.d. | 0.036 ± 0.003 | 0.030 ± 0.005 |
| 11 | 14.444 | 1193 | n.d. | 3-hydroxy-6-methyl-benzaldehyde | 0.132 ± 0.058 | 0.063 ± 0.009 | 0.076 ± 0.034 | 0.198 ± 0.014 | 0.016 ± 0.003 | 0.139 ± 0.009 | 0.044 ± 0.038 |
| 12 | 14.641 | 1199 | 1178 | 2,6,6-trimethyl-1,3-cyclohexadiene-1-carboxaldehyde | 0.202 ± 0.026 | 0.136 ± 0.023 | 0.101 ± 0.014 | 0.151 ± 0.018 | 0.051 ± 0.005 | 0.072 ± 0.004 | 0.086 ± 0.018 |
| 13 | 14.813 | 1204 | 1185 | Decanal | 0.168 ± 0.002 | 0.104 ± 0.017 | 0.035 ± 0.004 | 0.056 ± 0.002 | n.d. | 0.032 ± 0.001 | 0.026 ± 0.005 |
| 14 | 15.354 | 1221 | 1123 | 2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde | 0.310 ± 0.014 | 0.148 ± 0.020 | 0.124 ± 0.009 | 0.209 ± 0.025 | 0.070 ± 0.016 | 0.062 ± 0.003 | 0.186 ± 0.040 |
| 15 | 16.582 | 1257 | 1261 | 2,6,6-trimethyl-1-cyclohexene-1-acetaldehyde | 0.105 ± 0.095 | 0.153 ± 0.159 | n.d. | 0.154 ± 0.011 | 0.031 ± 0.004 | 0.059 ± 0.009 | 0.326 ± 0.293 |
| 16 | 16.703 | 1261 | 1265 | E-2-decenal | 0.424 ± 0.002 | 0.270 ± 0.063 | n.d. | 0.068 ± 0.008 | 0.010 ± 0.003 | 0.038 ± 0.001 | n.d. |
| 17 | 18.529 | 1315 | 1318 | (E,E)-2,4-Decadienal | 1.825 ± 0.066 | 0.912 ± 0.157 | 3.159 ± 0.114 | 0.491 ± 0.051 | n.d. | 0.081 ± 0.004 | 0.139 ± 0.028 |
| 18 | 20.055 | 1362 | 1262 | 2-decenal | 0.438 ± 0.040 | 0.394 ± 0.040 | n.d. | 0.048 ± 0.043 | n.d. | 0.058 ± 0.007 | 0.020 ± 0.002 |
| 19 | 33.683 | 1837 | 1850 | 5,9,13-trimethyl-4,8,12-tetradecatrienal | 0.576 ± 0.091 | n.d. | n.d. | 0.231 ± 0.037 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| 20 | 38.442 | 2025 | n.d. | 3-(4-methyl-3-pentenyl)-3-cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde | n.d. | 0.083 ± 0.021 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 0.223 ± 0.086 |
| Aldehydes | Total contents | 14.022 ± 1.551 | 6.056 ± 1.646 | 5.139 ± 1.308 | 4.383 ± 0.616 | 1.507 ± 0.166 | 1.718 ± 0.206 | 2.670 ± 0.795 | |||
| 21 | 4.462 | n.d. | 868 | Ethylbenzene | 0.181 ± 0.070 | 0.127 ± 0.033 | 0.097 ± 0.004 | 0.123 ± 0.024 | 0.102 ± 0.028 | 0.053 ± 0.014 | 0.193 ± 0.061 |
| 22 | 4.602 | n.d. | 870 | p-xylene | 0.353 ± 0.171 | 0.148 ± 0.034 | 0.105 ± 0.014 | 0.125 ± 0.014 | 0.152 ± 0.009 | 0.045 ± 0.010 | 0.299 ± 0.084 |
| 23 | 5.092 | n.d. | 890 | Styrene | 0.558 ± 0.306 | 0.382 ± 0.080 | 0.138 ± 0.007 | 0.214 ± 0.080 | 0.221 ± 0.054 | 0.119 ± 0.006 | 0.253 ± 0.065 |
| 24 | 29.484 | 1679 | n.d. | 1,2,3-trimethyl-4-[(1E)-prop-1-en-1-yl]naphthalene | 0.270 ± 0.016 | 0.159 ± 0.053 | 0.097 ± 0.006 | 0.126 ± 0.095 | 0.048 ± 0.003 | 0.068 ± 0.002 | 0.058 ± 0.009 |
| 25 | 29.681 | 1686 | n.d. | (4-acetylphenyl)-phenylmethane | 0.225 ± 0.054 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| 26 | 30.311 | 1708 | 1668 | 2,2′,5,5′-tetramethyl-1,1'-biphenyl | 0.127 ± 0.027 | 0.054 ± 0.036 | 0.066 ± 0.008 | 0.188 ± 0.106 | 0.030 ± 0.003 | 0.039 ± 0.001 | 0.026 ± 0.024 |
| 27 | 31.806 | 1765 | 1541 | 1,2,3,5,6,8a-hexahydro-4,7-dimethyl-1-(1-methylethyl)-naphthalene | n.d. | 0.008 ± 0.015 | n.d. | 0.021 ± 0.001 | 0.067 ± 0.001 | 0.034 ± 0.034 | n.d. |
| 28 | 32.041 | 1774 | 1793 | Anthracene | 0.160 ± 0.052 | 0.049 ± 0.043 | 0.174 ± 0.010 | 0.091 ± 0.013 | n.d. | 0.091 ± 0.001 | 0.101 ± 0.016 |
| Arenes | Total contents | 1.874 ± 0.696 | 0.927 ± 0.294 | 0.677 ± 0.049 | 0.888 ± 0.333 | 0.620 ± 0.098 | 0.449 ± 0.068 | 0.930 ± 0.259 | |||
| 29 | 7.497 | 981 | 981 | Hexanoic acid | n.d. | 1.845 ± 0.745 | 0.021 ± 0.003 | 0.191 ± 0.146 | 0.026 ± 0.005 | 0.246 ± 0.170 | 0.077 ± 0.025 |
| 30 | 13.980 | 1180 | 1191 | Octanoic acid | 1.272 ± 0.103 | 0.463 ± 0.412 | n.d. | 0.041 ± 0.005 | 0.016 ± 0.008 | n.d. | 0.064 ± 0.018 |
| 31 | 17.269 | 1277 | 1297 | Nonanoic acid | 0.600 ± 0.046 | 0.397 ± 0.242 | 0.046 ± 0.005 | 0.153 ± 0.049 | 0.029 ± 0.005 | 0.140 ± 0.019 | 0.056 ± 0.049 |
| 32 | 20.265 | 1369 | 1387 | n-decanoic acid | n.d. | n.d. | 1.358 ± 0.201 | 0.069 | n.d. | 0.073 ± 0.016 | n.d. |
| 33 | 31.685 | 1760 | 1765 | Tetradecanoic acid | n.d. | 0.113 ± 0.065 | n.d. | 0.088 ± 0.016 | n.d. | 0.062 ± 0.004 | n.d. |
| 34 | 41.947 | 2138 | 2134 | 9,12-octadecadienoic acid | 0.569 ± 0.329 | 0.272 ± 0.195 | 1.514 ± 0.369 | 0.376 ± 0.075 | 0.206 ± 0.293 | 0.260 ± 0.091 | n.d. |
| Acids | Total contents | 2.441 ± 0.375 | 3.090 ± 1.659 | 2.933 ± 0.578 | 0.918 ± 0.36 | 0.277 ± 0.311 | 0.781 ± 0.300 | 0.197 ± 0.092 | |||
| Alcohols | |||||||||||
| 35 | 9.087 | 1033 | 1024 | Benzyl alcohol | 0.919 ± 0.090 | n.d. | 0.058 ± 0.002 | 0.299 ± 0.097 | 0.028 ± 0.003 | 0.078 ± 0.008 | 0.220 ± 0.121 |
| 36 | 10.322 | 1071 | 1077 | Linalool oxide | 0.579 ± 0.026 | 0.339 ± 0.131 | 0.549 ± 0.032 | 0.401 ± 0.030 | 0.211 ± 0.010 | 0.211 ± 0.035 | 0.248 ± 0.072 |
| 37 | 10.850 | 1088 | 1094 | trans-linalool oxide (furanoid) | 0.526 ± 0.036 | 0.199 ± 0.038 | 1.100 ± 0.055 | 0.540 ± 0.033 | 0.329 ± 0.021 | 0.274 ± 0.032 | 0.122 ± 0.033 |
| 38 | 11.225 | 1099 | 1100 | Linalool | 0.271 ± 0.007 | 0.270 ± 0.043 | 0.420 ± 0.024 | 0.284 ± 0.024 | 0.233 ± 0.011 | 0.477 ± 0.038 | 0.793 ± 0.143 |
| 39 | 11.518 | 1108 | 1114 | 2,6-dimethylcyclohexanol | 0.708 ± 0.031 | 0.272 ± 0.064 | 0.092 ± 0.008 | 0.315 ± 0.018 | 0.069 ± 0.007 | 0.131 ± 0.006 | 0.153 ± 0.044 |
| 40 | 11.785 | 1116 | 1115 | Phenylethyl alcohol | 0.697 ± 0.057 | 0.163 ± 0.088 | 0.120 ± 0.015 | 0.219 ± 0.009 | 0.046 ± 0.062 | 0.066 ± 0.010 | 0.151 ± 0.056 |
| 41 | 13.496 | 1166 | 1168 | 4-ethylphenol | 0.026 ± 0.013 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 0.017 ± 0.004 | 0.112 ± 0.005 | n.d. |
| 42 | 13.757 | 1173 | 1173 | Linalool oxide II (pyranoid) | 0.055 ± 0.007 | 0.436 ± 0.071 | 1.830 ± 0.050 | 0.442 ± 0.003 | 0.664 ± 0.070 | 0.358 ± 0.009 | 0.186 ± 0.030 |
| 43 | 14.336 | 1190 | 1190 | α-terpineol | 0.197 ± 0.042 | 0.119 ± 0.024 | 0.643 ± 0.067 | 0.134 ± 0.008 | 0.466 ± 0.021 | 0.147 ± 0.007 | 0.158 ± 0.041 |
| 44 | 16.506 | 1255 | 1267 | Geraniol | 0.157 ± 0.043. | 0.044 ± 0.019 | 0.083 ± 0.023 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 0.083 ± 0.105 |
| 45 | 22.257 | 1432 | n.d. | 1-(4-tert-butylphenyl) propan-2-one | n.d. | 0.162 ± 0.012 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| 46 | 25.094 | 1525 | n.d. | 5-pentyl-1,3-benzenediol | 0.466 ± 0.036 | 0.250 ± 0.149 | 0.110 ± 0.026 | 0.503 ± 0.042 | 0.180 ± 0.010 | 0.149 ± 0.001 | 0.193 ± 0.043 |
| 47 | 26.214 | 1563 | 1531 | Nerolidol | 0.711 ± 0.397 | 1.123 ± 0.253 | 0.267 ± 0.010 | 0.608 ± 0.035 | 0.137 ± 0.003 | 0.220 ± 0.022 | 0.596 ± 0.108 |
| 48 | 27.372 | 1603 | 1608 | Cedrol | 0.472 ± 0.053 | 0.116 ± 0.014 | 0.211 ± 0.026 | 1.104 ± 0.093 | 2.598 ± 0.068 | 0.271 ± 0.035 | 0.060 ± 0.019 |
| 49 | 28.854 | 1656 | 1650 | α-cadinol | 0.144 ± 0.075 | 0.061 ± 0.024 | 0.114 ± 0.004 | 0.128 ± 0.021 | 0.083 ± 0.003 | 0.057 ± 0.002 | |
| 50 | 36.361 | 1945 | 1948 | Isophytol | 0.267 ± 0.072 | 0.177 ± 0.087 | 0.276 ± 0.025 | 0.135 ± 0.020 | 0.082 ± 0.006 | 0.105 ± 0.002 | 0.219 ± 0.053 |
| 51 | 41.005 | 2111 | 2122 | Phytol | 0.852 ± 0.255 | 1.107 ± 0.574 | n.d. | n.d. | 0.991 ± 0.127 | 1.187 ± 0.110 | n.d. |
| Alcohols | Total contents | 7.057 ± 1.237 | 4.834 ± 1.592 | 5.874 ± 0.430 | 5.112 ± 0.635 | 6.125 ± 0.451 | 3.776 ± 0.390 | 3.236 ± 0.969 | |||
| 52 | 10.112 | 1065 | 1065 | Acetophenone | 0.526 ± 0.050 | n.d. | 0.037 ± 0.003 | 0.082 ± 0.014 | 0.027 ± 0.004 | 0.058 ± 0.010 | 0.074 ± 0.015 |
| 53 | 10.996 | 1092 | 1100 | 3,5-octadien-2-one | 0.364 ± 0.019 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| 54 | 12.701 | 1143 | 1142 | 2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexene-1,4-dione | 0.124 ± 0.037 | 0.056 ± 0.002 | 0.025 ± 0.012 | 0.058 ± 0.013 | n.d. | 0.034 ± 0.004 | n.d. |
| 55 | 19.394 | 1342 | n.d. | 2-pentylcyclopentanone | n.d. | 0.256 ± 0.045 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| 56 | 21.232 | 1399 | 1396 | cis-jasmone | 0.491 ± 0.779 | 0.214 ± 0.260 | n.d. | 0.024 ± 0.003 | n.d. | 0.008 ± 0.001 | 0.185 ± 0.050 |
| 57 | 21.385 | 1404 | 1408 | Pseudoionone | 0.240 ± 0.106 | 0.135 ± 0.055 | 0.362 ± 0.014 | 0.020 ± 0.003 | 0.013 ± 0.010 | 0.035 ± 0.001 | n.d. |
| 58 | 22.123 | 1428 | 1427 | α-ionone | 1.506 ± 0.193 | 0.520 ± 0.004 | 0.083 ± 0.018 | 0.475 ± 0.037 | 0.043 ± 0.002 | 0.183 ± 0.010 | 0.075 ± 0.003 |
| 59 | 22.880 | 1452 | 1458 | Geranylacetone | 2.701 ± 0.176 | 1.056 ± 0.094 | 0.104 ± 0.031 | 1.281 ± 0.082 | 0.056 ± 0.033 | 0.319 ± 0.034 | 0.125 ± 0.051 |
| 60 | 23.834 | 1483 | 1388 | Damascenone | 0.055 ± 0.028 | 0.393 ± 0.631 | 0.329 ± 0.022 | 0.870 ± 0.681 | n.d. | 0.049 ± 0.003 | 0.233 ± 0.404 |
| 61 | 23.930 | 1486 | 1490 | ß-Ionone | 2.243 ± 0.186 | 1.036 ± 0.070 | 0.295 ± 0.025 | 1.272 ± 0.065 | 0.237 ± 0.005 | 0.511 ± 0.023 | 0.673 ± 0.117 |
| 62 | 28.052 | 1627 | 1621 | Benzophenone | 0.282 ± 0.010 | 0.054 ± 0.031 | 0.068 ± 0.009 | 0.062 ± 0.026 | 0.010 ± 0.001 | 0.062 ± 0.004 | 0.050 ± 0.008 |
| 63 | 33.823 | 1843 | 1838 | Hexahydrofarnesyl acetone | 1.878 ± 0.306 | 1.801 ± 0.128 | 0.248 ± 0.030 | 1.130 ± 0.244 | 0.093 ± 0.002 | 1.044 ± 0.109 | 0.218 ± 0.086 |
| 64 | 35.674 | 1917 | 1921 | Farnesyl acetone | 0.940 ± 0.115 | 0.345 ± 0.119 | n.d. | 0.458 ± 0.043 | 0.330 ± 0.120 | 0.225 ± 0.010 | 0.155 ± 0.186 |
| Ketones | Total contents | 11.35 ± 2.005 | 5.866 ± 1.439 | 1.551 ± 0.164 | 5.732 ± 1.211 | 0.809 ± 0.177 | 2.528 ± 0.209 | 1.788 ± 0.92 | |||
| 65 | 12.949 | 1150 | 1159 | 2-ethylhexyl acetate | 0.188 ± 0.133 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 0.010 ± 0.005 | 0.099 ± 0.021 |
| 66 | 14.451 | 1194 | 1187 | Methyl salicylate | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 0.221 ± 0.032 | n.d. | 0.138 ± 0.010 | n.d. |
| 67 | 18.210 | 1306 | 1320 | 2-hydroxybenzoic acid, 1-methylethyl ester | n.d. | 0.097 ± 0.021 | n.d. | n.d. | 0.021 ± 0.006 | 0.038 ± 0.005 | 0.360 ± 0.130 |
| 68 | 20.641 | 1380 | 1382 | (3Z)-3-hexenyl hexanoate | 0.296 ± 0.303 | 0.042 ± 0.005 | 0.115 ± 0.007 | 0.039 ± 0.009 | 0.014 ± 0.001 | 0.048 ± 0.056 | 0.078 ± 0.037 |
| 69 | 24.152 | 1493 | n.d. | Tetrahydroactinidiolide | 0.220 ± 0.018 | 0.086 ± 0.010 | 0.057 ± 0.001 | 0.125 ± 0.008 | 0.032 ± 0.003 | 0.095 ± 0.004 | |
| 70 | 25.240 | 1530 | 1525 | Dihydroactindiolide | 1.147 ± 0.184 | 0.810 ± 0.010 | 0.275 ± 0.014 | 0.613 ± 0.065 | 0.170 ± 0.032 | 0.360 ± 0.008 | 0.143 ± 0.086 |
| 71 | 35.840 | 1923 | 1928 | Hexadecanoic acid, methyl ester | 0.335 ± 0.004 | 0.198 ± 0.041 | 0.229 ± 0.053 | 0.392 ± 0.065 | 0.115 ± 0.005 | 0.129 ± 0.009 | 0.119 ± 0.047 |
| 72 | 40.325 | 2090 | 2092 | (Z,Z)-9,12-octadecadienoic acid, methyl ester | 0.090 ± 0.004 | 0.060 ± 0.015 | 0.205 ± 0.017 | 0.197 ± 0.021 | 0.087 ± 0.003 | 0.056 ± 0.003 | 0.121 ± 0.114 |
| 73 | 40.535 | 2097 | 2105 | (Z,Z,Z)-9,12,15-octadecatrienoic acid, methyl ester | 0.261 ± 0.018 | 0.260 ± 0.114 | 0.402 ± 0.027 | 0.393 ± 0.049 | 0.188 ± 0.011 | 0.143 ± 0.005 | 0.319 ± 0.092 |
| Esters | Total contents | 2.537 ± 0.664 | 1.553 ± 0.216 | 1.226 ± 0.118 | 1.912 ± 0.242 | 0.72 ± 0.066 | 0.954 ± 0.104 | 1.333 ± 0.531 | |||
| 74 | 12.803 | 1146 | 1149 | 1,2-dimethoxybenzene | 0.185 ± 0.037 | 0.109 ± 0.024 | 0.449 ± 0.028 | 0.121 ± 0.017 | 0.125 ± 0.007 | 0.063 ± 0.011 | n.d. |
| 75 | 15.958 | 1239 | 1230 | 3,4-dimethoxytoluene | 0.223 ± 0.118 | 0.027 ± 0.003 | 0.121 ± 0.009 | 0.052 ± 0.007 | 0.025 ± 0.002 | 0.025 ± 0.004 | n.d. |
| 76 | 18.459 | 1313 | 1309 | 1,2,3-trimethoxybenzene | n.d. | 0.211 ± 0.019 | 3.159 ± 0.114 | 0.220 ± 0.016 | 0.289 ± 0.100 | 0.116 ± 0.004 | n.d. |
| 77 | 18.783 | 1323 | n.d. | 4-ethyl-1,2-dimethoxybenzene | 0.228 ± 0.071 | 0.075 ± 0.051 | 0.123 ± 0.008 | n.d. | 0.024 ± 0.001 | 0.028 ± 0.003 | n.d. |
| 78 | 20.202 | 1367 | n.d. | 4-ethyl-1,2-dimethoxybenzene | 0.290 ± 0.306 | 0.040 ± 0.028 | 0.042 ± 0.002 | 0.085 ± 0.013 | n.d. | 0.083 ± 0.028 | 0.013 ± 0.003 |
| 79 | 20.329 | 1371 | n.d. | 1,2,4-trimethoxybenzene | 0.161 ± 0.024 | 0.062 ± 0.022 | 1.368 ± 0.132 | n.d. | 0.337 ± 0.044 | n.d. | 0.022 ± 0.006 |
| 80 | 22.721 | 1447 | n.d. | 1,2,3,4-tetramethoxybenzene | n.d. | 0.961 ± 0.083 | 0.055 ± 0.013 | 0.483 ± 0.695 | 0.022 ± 0.002 | n.d. | 0.043 ± 0.006 |
| 81 | 23.758 | 1481 | n.d. | 3,5-dimethoxy-4-hydroxyacetophenone | 0.112 ± 0.074 | 0.027 ± 0.003 | 0.248 ± 0.020 | 0.067 ± 0.017 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| 82 | 24.273 | 1497 | 1408 | 1,2-dimethoxy-4-propenylbenzene | 0.245 ± 0.022 | 0.032 ± 0.006 | 0.058 ± 0.025 | 0.091 ± 0.025 | n.d. | 0.013 ± 0.005 | n.d. |
| 26.010 | 1558 | 1559 | 1,2,3-trimethoxy-5-(2-propenyl)-benzene | 0.065 ± 0.020 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | ||
| Methoxyphenolics | Total contents | 1.509 ± 0.672 | 1.544 ± 0.239 | 5.623 ± 0.351 | 1.119 ± 0.79 | 0.815 ± 0.156 | 0.328 ± 0.055 | 0.078 ± 0.015 | |||
| 83 | 21.665 | 1413 | 1409 | α-cedrene | 0.057 ± 0.022 | 0.018 ± 0.008 | n.d. | 0.106 ± 0.030 | n.d. | 0.032 ± 0.010 | 0.053 ± 0.001 |
| 84 | 24.592 | 1508 | 1507 | α-farnesenea | 0.153 ± 0.073 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 0.013 ± 0.011 | 0.134 ± 0.017 |
| 85 | 63.069 | 2820 | 2660 | Squalene | 0.881 ± 0.126 | 0.126 ± 0.024 | n.d. | 0.315 ± 0.028 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| Alkenes | Total contents | 1.091 ± 0.221 | 0.144 ± 0.032 | 0.421 ± 0.058 | 0.045 ± 0.021 | 0.187 ± 0.018 | |||||
| 86 | 29.999 | 1697 | n.d. | Hexadecane | 0.349 ± 0.035 | 0.081 ± 0.012 | 0.043 ± 0.007 | 0.231 ± 0.052 | 0.026 ± 0.003 | 0.042 ± 0.005 | 0.055 ± 0.011 |
| 87 | 32.652 | 1797 | n.d. | Octadecane | 0.169 ± 0.038 | 0.102 ± 0.059 | n.d. | 0.110 ± 0.021 | n.d. | n.d. | 0.046 ± 0.020 |
| 88 | 35.171 | 1896 | n.d. | Nonadecane | 0.127 ± 0.003 | 0.097 ± 0.016 | n.d. | 0.073 ± 0.020 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| 89 | 37.614 | 1996 | n.d. | Eicosane | n.d. | 0.254 ± 0.034 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| 90 | 47.985 | 2295 | n.d. | Octacosane | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 0.306 ± 0.073 |
| 91 | 56.020 | 2496 | n.d. | Tetracosane | n.d. | 0.087 ± 0.002 | n.d. | 0.141 ± 0.019 | n.d. | 0.071 ± 0.028 | 0.494 ± 0.167 |
| 92 | 60.734 | 2693 | n.d. | Eicosane | n.d. | 0.088 ± 0.010 | n.d. | 0.124 ± 0.026 | n.d. | 0.100 ± 0.052 | 0.210 ± 0.088 |
| Alkanes | Total contents | 0.645 ± 00.073 | 0.709 ± 00.133 | 0.040 ± 00.007 | 0.679 ± 00.138 | 0.026 ± 00.003 | 0.213 ± 00.085 | 1.111 ± 00.359 | |||
| 93 | 9.564 | 1048 | 1016 | 1-methyl-1H-pyrrole-2-carboxaldehyde | n.d. | n.d. | 0.258 ± 0.014 | n.d. | n.d. | 0.013 ± 0.003 | 0.243 ± 0.279 |
| 94 | 7.732 | 990 | 996 | 2-pentylfuran | 2.185 ± 0.229 | 1.306 ± 0.417 | 0.042 ± 0.007 | 0.255 ± 0.018 | 0.034 ± 0.003 | 0.184 ± 0.012 | 0.159 ± 0.046 |
| 95 | 17.791 | 1293 | 1292 | Indole | 0.765 ± 0.141 | 0.410 ± 0.075 | n.d. | 0.223 ± 0.024 | 0.076 ± 0.021 | 0.060 ± 0.005 | 0.324 ± 0.083 |
| 96 | 26.665 | 1579 | 1583 | Fluorene | 0.212 ± 0.037 | 0.066 ± 0.008 | 0.044 ± 0.001 | n.d. | 0.028 ± 0.006 | 0.054 ± 0.004 | 0.079 ± 0.016 |
| 97 | 28.599 | 1647 | 1649 | 2,6,10-trimethyl-pentadecane | 0.219 ± 0.124 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 0.040 ± 0.001 | n.d. |
| 98 | 50.618 | 2353 | 1375 | (Z)-9-octadecenamide | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 0.322 ± 0.175 |
| Others | Total contents | 3.381 ± 0.531 | 1.782 ± 0.500 | 0.344 ± 0.022 | 0.478 ± 0.042 | 0.138 ± 0.030 | 0.351 ± 0.025 | 1.127 ± 0.599 | |||
RI = retention indices calculated in the experiment.
RI = retention indices in the literature or National Institute of Standards and Technology website; volatiles were identified according to the following: MS = mass spectrum comparison using National Institute of Standards and Technology libraries; RI = retention index in agreement with literature value.
μg/g = concentration was expressed in microgram per gram of tea samples, ethyl decanoate as internal standard, and data listed were the mean of three assays ± standard deviation. GT = Green tea sample; GXDT = Guangxi dark tea; HBDT = Hubei dark tea; HNDT = Hunan dark tea; n.d. = not detected or RI was not provided in literature; RI = retention index; SCDT = Sichuan dark tea; SXDT = Shanxi dark tea; YNDT = Yunnan dark tea.
In the YNDT, similar to the published results, methoxyphenolics were the major volatile compounds, with a total content of 5.623 ± 0.351 μg/g [15]. Among these methoxyphenolic compounds, 1,2,3-trimethoxybenzene was identified as one of the major volatile compounds of YNDT, which had highest relative content (3.159 ± 0.114 μg/g), followed by 1,2,4-trimethoxybenzene (1.368 ± 0.132 μg/g). Furthermore, alcohols were also the other type of volatile compound in YNDT, the main alcohols were the linalool oxides, which contributed to the total content of 3.479 ± 0.137 μg/g. Compared with green tea, the contents of linalool in post-fermented teas (CDTs) were significantly decreased.
In SCDT, the major volatile compounds were aldehydes and ketones, with the total contents of 14.022 ± 1.551 μg/g and 11.350 ± 2.005 μg/g, respectively. (E,E)-2,4-heptadienal was the main aldehyde in HNDT, followed by (E,E)-2,4-decadienal and nonanal. These C6aldehydes were usually described as having a “grassy” flavor. Furthermore, α-ionone, ß-ionone, ger-anylacetone, and hexahydrofarnesyl acetone had the content of 1.506 ± 0.193 μg/g, 2.701 ± 0.176 μg/g, 2.243 ± 0.186 μg/g, and 1.878 ± 0.306 μg/g, respectively. The HNDT and SXDT belong to the fu-brick teas which are mainly postfermented by E. cristatum. In HNDT, the volatile compounds were ß-ionone, geranylacetone, hexahydrofarnesyl acetone, and damascenone. In SXDT, ketones and esters were the main volatile compounds, with the contents of 2.528 ± 0.209 μg/g and 0.954 ± 0.104 μg/g, respectively, and the main ketone was hexahydrofarnesyl acetone.
In the GXDT, alcohols were the main volatile compounds. Among these alcohols, cedrol were the most abundant alcohols in GXDT (2.598 ± 0.068 μg/g). The integral contents of volatile compounds were much less than other CDTs. The contents of aldehydes, acids, ketones, and esters were the lowest in all six types of CDTs. In the HBDT, the contents of hexadecanoic acid and nonanoic acid were the highest in all CDTs. Furthermore, it also contained high contents of ketones, mainly composed of ß-ionone, geranylacetone, and hexahydrofarnesyl acetone.
3.2. Metabolomics analysis of GC-MS data of various CDTs
Chemo-metric pattern recognition techniques, such as PCA, are valuable tools for reducing the complexity of GC-MS data sets. The scores plot for the entire data set is shown in Figure 2. PCA was performed on all data from GC-MS in all types of CDTs sample (Figure 2). The results showed that YNDT and GXDT samples were classified as one type.
Figure 2.
Classification of various Chinese dark teas using principal component analysis, partial least squares (PLS), and orthogonal projection on latent structure-discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry profiles. (A) Score plot of principal component analysis; (B) score plot of PLS; (C) score plot of OPLS-DA; (D) S-plot of various Chinese dark teas under the OPLS-DA model. GT = green tea; GXDT = Guangxi dark tea; HBDT =Hubei dark tea; HNDT =Hunan dark tea; SCDT =Sichuan dark tea; SXDT =Shanxi dark tea; YNDT =Yunnan dark tea.
The PLS model provided a similar classification results for all kinds of CDTs. The summary of the fit of the model is displayed with R2X (cum) [R2X shows the percentage of variance in the data that is explained by a particular component, R2X (cum) sums up the R2X as they accumulate with an increase in the number of components] and Q2 (cum) [indicates the predictive ability of the model]. In total, PLS describes 75.5% of the variable X (R2X), 94.9% of the variable Y in the data with a Q2 of 86.8% for the six main components indicating good prediction properties of the model. The score plots also indicated that six types of CDTs were obviously divided into two types, one type included YNDT and GXDT, and the other type had SCDT, HNDT, HBDT, and SXDT.
OPLS-DA score plots readily divided all of the CDT samples into two types. The variable importance in the projection value of the OPLS-DA model was greater than 1.2. The marker compound variables were identified as shown in Table 2. A total of 17 marker compounds are listed in Table 2.
Table 2.
The VIP variables responsible for the classification of six types of Chinese dark teas (CDTs).
| No. | Retention time (min) | Compound identification | Highest relative content in CDTs | Lowest relative content in CDTs | VIP index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 18.529 | (E,E)-2,4-decadienal | YNDT | GXDT | 1.288 |
| 2 | 12.803 | 1,2-dimethoxybenzene | YNDT | SXDT | 1.285 |
| 3 | 20.329 | 1,2,4-trimethoxybenzene | YNDT | HNDT/SXDT | 1.283 |
| 4 | 16.506 | Geraniol | SCDT | HNDT/GXDT/SXDT | 1.273 |
| 5 | 8.311 | 2,4-heptadienal | SCDT | YNDT | 1.273 |
| 6 | 13.757 | Linalool oxide II(pyranoid) | YNDT | SXDT | 1.268 |
| 7 | 21.232 | cis-jasmone | SCDT | YNDT/GXDT | 1.260 |
| 8 | 13.242 | 2-nonenal | SCDT | YNDT/GXDT | 1.256 |
| 9 | 22.880 | Geranylacetone | SCDT | YNDT/GXDT | 1.255 |
| 10 | 7.732 | 2-pentylfuran | SCDT | YNDT/GXDT | 1.238 |
| 11 | 41.947 | 9,12-octadecadienoic acid | YNDT | GXDT | 1.237 |
| 12 | 7.879 | (E,E)-2,4-heptadienal | SCDT | YNDT | 1.229 |
| 13 | 10.850 | Trans-linalool oxide (furanoid) | YNDT | HBDT | 1.229 |
| 14 | 23.758 | 3,5-dimethoxy-4-hydroxyacetophenon | YNDT | GXDT/SXDT | 1.218 |
| 16 | 14.336 | α-terpineol | YNDT | HBDT | 1.217 |
| 16 | 23.930 | ß-ionone | SCDT | GXDT | 1.213 |
| 17 | 11.371 | Nonanal | SCDT | GXDT | 1.208 |
GT = Green tea sample; GXDT = Guangxi dark tea; HBDT = Hubei dark tea; HNDT = Hunan dark tea; SCDT = Sichuan dark tea; SXDT = Shanxi dark tea; VIP = variable importance in the projection; YNDT = Yunnan dark tea.
3.3. Change of marker volatile compounds during solid-state fermentation by Aspergillus niger
The mature tea leaves were fermented by A. niger. As shown in Figure 3, five marker volatile compounds including geraniol, linalool oxides, 9,12-octadecadienoic acid, and ß-ionone were monitored during the solid-state fermentation. Samples at different times were detected by GC-MS to analyze the dynamic changes of aroma of tea samples in the process of fermentation. According to the GC-MS results, we discovered the regularity of flavor compounds in the process of fermentation.
Figure 3.
The trajectories of marker volatile compounds in mature tea leaves fermented with Aspergillus niger from 0 hours to 120 hours.
Geraniol is the aroma of rose and geranium. It was also considered as the typical flavor compound of green tea. During the solid-state fermentation, the content of geraniol is rapidly increased in 24 hours, but after 48 hours this flavor compound was not detected in the fermented tea leaves (Figure 3). This result suggested that the green tea aroma may disappear after long-term postfermentation, but short-term fermentation may assist in enhancing the flavor of green tea. In the industrial production, the postfermentation could last for months, even years, so the flavor of CDTs is highly different from green tea.
3.4. Change of marker volatile compounds during solid-state fermentation by E. cristatum
E. cristatum is usually called “golden flower” in the fu-brick tea (HNDT and SXDT). Cis-jasmone, α-terpineol, ß-ionone, nona-nal, and 2-pentylfuran were detected in the tea leaves fermented by E. cristatum (Figure 4). Cis-jasmone showed a strong floral element and makes a highly significant contribution to the profile of oolong tea [16]. In the tea samples fermented by E. cristatum, this compound may give the HNDT the special aroma. The changes of ß-ionone and cis-jasmone were similar to the results obtained from the fermentation by A. niger.
Figure 4.
The trajectories of marker volatile compounds in mature tea leaves fermented with Eurotium cristatum from 0 hours to 120 hours.
2-Pentylfuran with a burnt and sweet odor was increased during the fermentation. In comparison with YNDT, the content of 2-pentylfuran in HNDT was significantly higher. Its formation may be related to the oxidation of linoleic acid. Furthermore, the change of α-terpineol was similar to that of geraniol, which could also be produced by the hydrolysis of glycosidic aroma precursors [17,18].
4. Discussion
Comparing with the volatile compounds of green tea, the CDTs were highly different. It was suggested that some typical green and fresh odorants were degraded and transformed into typical volatile compounds of CDTs during postfermentation. For example, CDTs contained higher contents of ketones which were mainly derived from the oxidation and degradation of fatty acids and carotenoids. It is well-known that these ketones are very important flavor compounds in various teas, providing a special floral and woody odor. Furthermore, the total acids (long chain fatty acids) of CDTs were significantly increased. It was suggested that the esters were hydrolyzed into fatty acids by the extracellular lipase produced by microorganism.
Through the multivariate analysis of GC-MS, YNDT and GXDT were distinguished from SCDT, SXDT, HBDT, and HNDT. Class prediction analysis has proven to be a valuable technique in characterization and authentication of traditional medicinal plants [19]. The class prediction model allows assigning categories into previously determined groups in an unbiased analysis. The OPLS-DA analysis gave some critical volatile compounds responsible for the classification of various CDTs. For example, eight compounds including (E,E)-2,4-decadienal, 1,2-dimethoxybenzene, 1,2,4-trimethoxybenzene, geraniol, linalool oxide II (pyranoid), 9,12-octadecadienoic acid, trans-linalool oxide (furanoid), α-terpineol, and 3,5-dimethoxy-4-hydroxyacetophenon showed the highest contents in YNDT. Among these marker compounds, methoxyphenolic compounds have been reported as the main typical compounds in YNDT (pu-erh tea). Other marker compounds also contributed to the classification of various CDTs. They are geraniol, 2,4-heptadienal, cis-jasmone, 2-nonenal, geranylacetone, 2-pentylfuran, (E,E)-2,4-heptadienal, ß-ionone, and nonanal. Cis-jasmone and ß-Ionone arethepotent flavor compounds of flora. Geranylacetone was also the abundant compound in fu-brick tea (HNDT).
The differences of volatile compounds of CDTs may be related to its own manufacturing process and the predominate fungi involved in fermentation. During the fermentation of tea leaves by A. niger, The geraniol derived from the glycosidic aroma precursors, which could be hydrolyzed to release the free form of geraniol by hydrolase secreted by A. niger [20,21]. But after long-term fermentation, this compound may be degraded and oxidized. ß-ionone is known for violet aroma and described as a complex woody and fruity scent [22]. It is known that ß-ionone is synthesized from carotenoids in the tea by oxidative degradation or enzymatic oxidation. It is also the typical flavor of green tea and oolong tea with low odor threshold [23]. In the CDTs, ß-ionone also decreased to a very low content after long-term fermentation.
These compounds are the critical volatile compounds responsible for the classification of various dark teas. The volatile components of tea could be affected by diverse factors such as maturity of tea leaves, variation of tea plants and processing conditions. To explore the flavor compounds of tea, GC-MS were the regular tools, but the unbiased metabolomics analysis of GC-MS dataset could provide more chemical classification for various teas, or tea samples during different process. In the present study, various CDTs were analyzed using GC-MS, the datasets of which were subsequently analyzed using multivariate analysis models. The results successfully reclassified and obtained some critical marker compounds being responsible for the properties of each cluster.
To clarify the relationship between these marker compounds and the effects of dominant fungi in post-fermentation, an artificial solid-state fermentation model was established. The contents of volatile compounds of mature tea samples during fermentation were continuously analyzed. It showed that the post-fermentation promoted the production and transformation of some volatile compounds. The hydrolysis of glycosidic aroma precursors produced α-terpineol and geraniol by the glycosidase(s) of A. niger and E. cristatum. However, these typical alcohols were almost undetectable after long-term fermentation. Although it was supposed that the methoxyphenolic compounds were degraded from gallic acid by the methylation of microorganisms, the apparent increment did not occur for methoxyphenolic compounds following the solid-state fermentation with A. niger. It was suggested that the generation of methoxyphenolic compounds may need a long-term fermentation or the participation of other microorganism in the postfermentation.
Acknowledgments
Financial support for this research was provided the Anhui Major Demonstration Project for Leading Talent Team on Tea Chemistry and Health, National Natural Science Foundation of China (31201335), Anhui Provincial Natural Science Foundation (138085QC51, 1708085MC73), and National Modern Agriculture Technology System (CARS-23).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfda.2016.11.020.
Funding Statement
Financial support for this research was provided the Anhui Major Demonstration Project for Leading Talent Team on Tea Chemistry and Health, National Natural Science Foundation of China (31201335), Anhui Provincial Natural Science Foundation (138085QC51, 1708085MC73), and National Modern Agriculture Technology System (CARS-23).
Footnotes
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
- 1. Zhang L, Zhang ZZ, Zhou YB, Ling TJ, Wan XC. Chinese dark teas: postfermentation, chemistry and biological activities. Food Res Int. 2013;53:600–7. [Google Scholar]
- 2. Wu PW. A review on the analysis of ingredients with health care effects in health food in Taiwan. J Food Drug Anal. 2015;23:343–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jfda.2015.03.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Zhu YF, Chen JJ, Ji XM, Hu X, Ling TJ, Zhang ZZ, Bao GH, Wan XC. Changes of major tea polyphenols and production of four new B-ring fission metabolites of catechins from post-fermented Jing-Wei Fu brick tea. Food Chem. 2015;170:110–7. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.08.075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Wang W, Zhang L, Wang S, Shi S, Jiang Y, Li N, Tu PF. 8-C N-ethyl-2-pyrrolidinone substituted flavan-3-ols as the marker compounds of Chinese dark teas formed in the post-fermentation process provide significant antioxidative activity. Food Chem. 2014;152:539–45. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.10.117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Qin JH, Li N, Tu PF, Ma ZZ, Zhang L. Change in tea polyphenol and purine alkaloid composition during solid-state fungal fermentation of postfermented tea. J Agr Food Chem. 2012;60:1213–7. doi: 10.1021/jf204844g. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Luo ZM, Du HX, Li LX, An MQ, Zhang ZZ, Wan XC, Bao GH, Zhang L, Ling TJ. Fuzhuanins A and B: the B-ring fission lactones of flavan-3-ols from Fuzhuan Brick-Tea. J Agr Food Chem. 2013;61:6982–90. doi: 10.1021/jf401724w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Diniz PHGD, Pistonesi MF, Alvarez MB, Band BSF, de Araújo MCU. Simplified tea classification based on a reduced chemical composition profile via successive projections algorithm linear discriminant analysis (SPA-LDA) J Food Compos Anal. 2015;39:103–10. [Google Scholar]
- 8. Zheng WJ, Wan XC, Bao GH. Brick dark tea: a review of the manufacture, chemical constituents and bioconversion of the major chemical components during fermentation. Phytochem Rev. 2015;14:499–523. [Google Scholar]
- 9. Lv HP, Zhang YJ, Lin Z, Liang YR. Processing and chemical constituents of Pu-erh tea: a review. Food Res Int. 2013;53:608–18. [Google Scholar]
- 10. Zhang L, Deng WW, Wan XC. Advantage of LC-MS metabolomics to identify marker compounds in two types of Chinese dark tea after different post-fermentation processes. Food Sci Biotechnol. 2014;23:355–60. [Google Scholar]
- 11. Du L, Wang C, Li J, Xiao D, Li C, Xu Y. Optimization of headspace solid-phase microextraction coupled with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry for detecting methoxyphenolic compounds in Pu-erh tea. J Agr Food Chem. 2013;61:561–8. doi: 10.1021/jf304470k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Xu YQ, Wang C, Li CW, Liu SH, Zhang CX, Li LW, Jiang DH. Characterization of aroma-active compounds of pu-erh tea by headspace solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME) and simultaneous distillation-extraction (SDE) coupled with GC-olfactometry and GC-MS. Food Anal Methods. 2016;9:1188–98. [Google Scholar]
- 13. Lv S, Wu Y, Li C, Xu Y, Liu L, Meng Q. Comparative analysis of Pu-erh and Fuzhuan teas by fully automatic headspace solid-phase microextraction coupled with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry and chemometric methods. J Agr Food Chem. 2014;62:1810–8. doi: 10.1021/jf405237u. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Javadi N, Abas F, Mediani A, Hamid AA, Khatib A, Simoh S, Shaari K. Effect of storage time on metabolite profile and alpha-glucosidase inhibitory activity of Cosmos caudatus, leaves – GCMS based metabolomics approach. J Food Drug Anal. 2015;23:433–41. doi: 10.1016/j.jfda.2015.01.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Lv S, Wu Y, Zhou J, Lian M, Li C, Xu Y, Liu S, Wang C, Meng Q. The study of fingerprint characteristics of Dayi pu-Erh tea using a fully automatic HS-SPME/GC–MS and combined chemometrics method. PloS One. 2014;9:e116428. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116428. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Wang KB, Liu F, Liu ZH, Huang JN, Xu ZX, Li YH, Chen JH, Gong YS, Yang XH. Analysis of chemical components in oolong tea in relation to perceived quality. Int J Food Sci Technol. 2010;45:913–20. [Google Scholar]
- 17. Rottava I, Toniazzo G, Cortina PF, Martello E, Grando CE, Lerin LA, Treichel H, Mossi AJ, de Oliveira D, Cansian RL, Antunes OAC, Oestreicher EG. Screening of microorganisms for bioconversion of (−) β-pinene and R-(+)-limonene to α-terpineol. LWT-Food Sci Technol. 2010;43:1128–31. [Google Scholar]
- 18. Yao S-S, Guo WF, Lu Y, Jiang YX. Flavor characteristics of lapsang souchong and smoked lapsang souchong, a special Chinese black tea with pine smoking process. J Agr Food Chem. 2005;53:8688–93. doi: 10.1021/jf058059i. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Duan LX, Chen TL, Li M, Chen M, Zhou YQ, Cui GH, Zhao AH, Jia W, Huang LQ. Use of the metabolomics approach to characterize Chinese medicinal material Huangqi. Mol Plant. 2012;5:376–86. doi: 10.1093/mp/ssr093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Guo W, Sakata K, Watanabe N, Nakajima R, Yagi A, Ina K, Luo S. Geranyl 6-O-β-d-xylopyranosyl-β-d-glucopyranoside isolated as an aroma precursor from tea leaves for oolong tea. Phytochemistry. 1993;33:1373–5. doi: 10.1016/0031-9422(93)85093-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Su E, Xia T, Gao L, Dai Q, Zhang Z. Immobilization of β-glucosidase and its aroma-increasing effect on tea beverage. Food Bioprod Process. 2010;88:83–9. [Google Scholar]
- 22. Hattori S, Takagaki H, Fujimori T. Evaluation of Japanese green tea extract using GC/O with original aroma simultaneously input to the sniffing port method (OASIS) Food Sci Technol Res. 2003;9:350–2. [Google Scholar]
- 23. Joshi R, Gulati A. Fractionation and identification of minor and aroma-active constituents in Kangra orthodox black tea. Food Chem. 2015;167:290–8. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.06.112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]




