4.6 Article

A comparative study of volatile components in green, oolong and black teas by using comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography-time-of-flight mass spectrometry and multivariate data analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1313, 期 -, 页码 245-252

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2013.06.022

关键词

GC x GC-TOFMS; Structured chromatogram; Tea; Volatile components; Simultaneous distillation extraction

资金

  1. General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People' Republic of China and the Foundation [201210075, 21175132]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21021004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The difference of volatile components in green, oolong and black teas was studied by using comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography-time-of-flight mass spectrometry (GC x GC-TOFMS). Simultaneous distillation extraction was proved to be a suitable technique to extract the analytes with interest. A total of 450 compounds were tentatively identified with comparison to the standard mass spectra in available databases, retention index on the first dimension and structured chromatogram. 33 tea samples, including 12,12 and 9 samples of green, oolong and black tea were analyzed by using GC x GC-TOFMS. After peak alignment, around 3600 peaks were detected. Partial least squares - discriminant analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis were used to classify these samples, then non-parametric hypothesis test (Mann-Whitney U test) and the variable importance in the projection (VIP) were applied to discover the key components to distinguish the three types of tea with significant difference amongst them. 74 differential compounds are defined to interpret the chemical differences of 3 types of tea. This study shows the power of GC x GC-TOFMS method combined with multivariate data analysis to investigate natural products with high complexity for information extraction. (c) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据