4.7 Review

Chemical constituents and biological properties of Pu-erh tea

期刊

FOOD RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 154, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110899

关键词

Pu′ er tea; Gallocatechin gallate; Camellia sinens is; Theabrownin; Antioxidant polyphenol; Dark tea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pu-erh tea, a post-fermented tea native to Yunnan, China, is highly valued for its unique aroma, taste, and potential health benefits. While it is believed to have antioxidative, antimicrobial, and other activities, limited human trials have not convincingly demonstrated its therapeutic efficiency. Further research and quality improvement strategies are recommended.
Pu-erh tea is post-fermented sun-dried tea leaves of Camellia sinensis (Linn.) var. assamica (Masters) Kitamura plant, native to Yunnan, China. Pu-erh tea is a highly prized commodity with unique aroma and taste and multiple health effects. This review overviews the chemical constituents, tentative bioactive compounds and their mechanisms responsible for bioactivities of Pu-erh tea. The bioactivities include antioxidative, antimutagenic, antimicrobial, laxative and neuroprotective activities, and controlling or preventing hypercholesterolemia, hyperglycemia, obesity, diabetes, osteoporosis and Alzheimer's disease. Limited human trials hardly convince the claimed therapeutic efficiency of Pu-erh tea. Raw and ripened Pu-erh tea possess their respective sensory characteristics, chemical and microbial diversities. Chemical and biological differences between Pu-erh and other tea types could be explained by different extents of their respective processing-induced compound transformations. Undesirable heavy metals, mycotoxins and other biocontaminants detected in Pu-erh tea relate to growing conditions of tea plantations, processing and storage conditions. Chemistry- and nutrition-derived mechanisms for tea pricing are lacking. Decontamination strategies and future studies for quality improvement of Pu-erh tea are recommended.

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