4.7 Article

Comparative investigation on aroma profiles of five different mint (Mentha) species using a combined sensory, spectroscopic and chemometric study

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 371, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.131104

关键词

Mint; Aroma-active compound; Aroma extract dilution analysis; Odor activity value; Potential odorant marker

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for Central Non-profit Scientific Institution [1610232021005]
  2. Science and Technology Project of China National Tobacco Corporation Shandong Branch [201911]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the sensorial and molecular differences among different mint species and identified distinct aroma characteristics in each species. Lemon mint had a pronounced lemon note, citrus and floral aromas dominated in apple mint, while peppermint had a strong minty flavor. Additionally, spearhead mint and peachleaf mint had similar scents with a spearmint-like note.
Mint is a widely used aromatic plant, and the aroma varies among different species. The aroma of five mint species, Mentha citrata L. (MC), Mentha piperita L. (MPI), Mentha spicata L. (MSP), Mentha persicaria L. (MPE), and Mentha suaveolens L. (MSU), were comparatively studied on the sensorial and molecular level. Quantitative descriptive analysis revealed that MC presented a pronounced lemon-like note, MSU is dominated by citrus and floral aromas, MPI has a prominent minty flavor, MSP and MPE have a similar scent, both of which are flavored with a spearmint-like note. Forty-one odorants with odor activity values (OAVs) >= 1 were characterized. Principal component analysis and orthogonal partial least squares discrimination analysis based on OAVs indicated that alpha-citral, menthofuran, isomenthone, menthol, carvone, and linalool were potential odor-active markers for five mint species discrimination. This study herein will provide guidance for mint resources utilization and also aid mint breeding with better flavor.

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