4.7 Article

Characterization of key aroma compounds and enantiomer distribution in Longjing tea

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 361, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.130096

关键词

Longjing tea; Aroma compounds; Chiral compound; Enantiomers; Enantiomer ratio (ER)

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program Nanotechnology Specific Project [2016YFA0200304]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31972196]
  3. Shanghai Gaofeng & Gaoyuan Project for University Academic Program Development [1021GN203004007-A21]
  4. Collaborative Innovation Center for Fragracne, Flavor and Cosmetics [1021ZK202002004-A06]
  5. Estabalishment of the Tabocco Product and Technology Integrated Innovation System for the Southeastern Asia Tobacco Market [2018IA057]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By identifying 18 enantiomers, this study determined the unique enantiomer ratios of Longjing tea of different grades and origins, providing a theoretical basis for distinguishing the authenticity of Longjing tea.
By comparing the enantiomers of authentic Longjing tea, the authenticity of Longjing tea can be effectively distinguished. In this study, 18 enantiomers were identified using a chiral column. At the same time, the unique enantiomer ratio (ER) of Longjing tea (LG1, LG2, LG3, LG4, LG5) of different grades and origins was determined. The ER can provide a theoretical basis for distinguishing Longjing tea of different grades and origins, and for identifying the authenticity of Longjing tea. The ER ratio of (R)-(-)-1-octen-3-ol and (S)-(+)-1-octen-3-ol can be used to identify LG1 (71:29). The ER ratio of (S)-(+)-alpha-ionone and (R)-(-)-alpha-ionone can be used to identify LG2 (65:35). The ER ratio of (R)-(-)-dihydroactinidiolide to (S)-(+)-dihydroactinidiolide (71:29) can also be used to detect LG3. The ER ratio of (R)-(+)-Limonene and (S)-(-)-limonene can be used to identify LG4 (20:80). The ER ratio of (R)-(-)-linalool to (S)-(+)-linalool (12:83) was available to identify LG5.

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

4.7
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