4.7 Article

Penicillium simplicissimum possessing high potential to develop decaffeinated Qingzhuan tea

期刊

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 165, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2022.113606

关键词

Penicillium simplicissimum; Caffeine degradation; Fungal community; Theophylline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the production of decaffeinated Qingzhuan tea (QZT) by inoculating Penicillium simplicissimum 4-17 into sun-dried green tea for pile fermentation. The results showed that after 21-day fermentation, most quality components in the decaffeinated tea were similar to those in naturally fermented QZT, except for caffeine. The addition of P. simplicissimum 4-17 contributed to high caffeine degradation ability and improved the overall quality of QZT.
The excessive intake of caffeine might adversely affect health, so decaffeinated food becomes a hot topic for investigation. Penicillium simplicissimum 4-17 was inoculated into sun-dried green tea for the pile fermentation (QZTWP) at a pilot scale to develop decaffeinated Qingzhuan tea (QZT). Through comparisons in chemical compositions, fungal community structure and sensory qualities, the results showed that after 21-d pile fermentation, most quality components in QZTWP were same or similar to those in naturally fermented QZT, except caffeine. Caffeine decreased nearly 50%, and some quality components were better in QZTWP than those in naturally fermented QZT. The addition of P. simplicissimum 4-17 couldn't change the dominant strains in the pile fermentation of QZT, but was conducive to increasing the amount of Saccharomyces, Candida, and Penicillium and to inhibiting the unfavorable strains. The results confirmed that P. simplicissimum 4-17 not only contributed high caffeine degradation ability of pilot fermentation of QZT, but also helped to improve the comprehensive quality of QZT. It means that there is a great potential of P. simplicissimum 4-17 for industrial production of decaffeinated QZT.

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