Shang Jie, Peng Jia-Yu, Zheng Yu-Qing, Deng Xiang-Jun, Gong Wen-Hui, Xin Li, Ke Rui, Guo Jing-Ying, Zheng Peng, Lyu Liang-Yu, You Ya-Qing, Zhang Jin-Lian
Jiangxi University of Chinese Medicine Nanchang 330004, China.
Yushan County People's Hospital Shangrao 334799, China.
Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2024 Oct;49(19):5218-5228. doi: 10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.20240712.301.
The Glycyrrhizae Radix et Rhizoma products processed with different methods, including raw materials(S) and products processed with honey according to the method in the Chinese Pharmacopoeia(Z) and Jianchangbang method(M), were analyzed in terms of the odor profile and volatile components by the electronic nose and headspace-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry(HS-GC-MS). The differential components in the three products were screened by chemometrics, on the basis of which the relative odor activity value(ROAV) was adopted to elucidate the odor differences among different products and the material basis of their odors. The results showed that the electronic nose effectively distinguished the products of Glycyrrhizae Radix et Rhizoma processed with different methods. The odor of Glycyrrhizae Radix et Rhizoma before and after processing differed greatly, and the Z and M samples had similar odors. A total of 49 volatile components were identified, including 22, 37, and 32 volatile components in S, Z, and M samples, respectively, among which 14 were common in the three products. There were significant differences in the categories and content of volatile components among different products. The results of principal component analysis(PCA) and orthogonal partial least squares-discriminant analysis(OPLS-DA) confirmed significant differences in the volatile components among products. Twenty-three differential components were screened out with the thresholds of variable importance in projection(VIP) value>1 and P<0.05. The soybean odor of the S samples was analyzed with the ROAV method, which suggested that this odor might be related to the presence of hexanal, 2-pentylfuran, and 1-octene-3-ol. After processing, the content of these components was reduced, and new components such as 3-methylbutanal, 2-acetylpyrrole, and benzeneacetaldehyde were generated. Accordingly, Z and M samples had burnt aroma and honey aroma, respectively. The burnt aroma of Z samples was mainly related to the generation of heterocyclic compounds such as 3-methylbutanal and 2-acetylpyrrole. The honey aroma of M samples was mainly related to the generation of aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzeneacetaldehyde. The use of honey chaff as the auxiliary material may contribute to the richer honey aroma of M samples produced with the Jianchangbang method than that of the Z samples produced with the method in the Chinese Pharmacopoeia.
采用电子鼻和顶空-气相色谱-质谱联用仪(HS-GC-MS),对甘草的不同加工品,包括原料(S)、按照《中国药典》方法(Z)和建昌帮方法(M)用蜂蜜炮制的产品,进行气味特征和挥发性成分分析。通过化学计量学方法筛选出三种产品中的差异成分,并在此基础上采用相对气味活性值(ROAV)来阐明不同产品之间的气味差异及其气味的物质基础。结果表明,电子鼻能够有效区分不同加工方法的甘草产品。甘草加工前后气味差异较大,Z和M样品气味相似。共鉴定出49种挥发性成分,其中S、Z、M样品分别有22种、37种和32种挥发性成分,三种产品中共有14种成分相同。不同产品的挥发性成分种类和含量存在显著差异。主成分分析(PCA)和正交偏最小二乘法判别分析(OPLS-DA)结果证实了产品间挥发性成分存在显著差异。以投影变量重要性(VIP)值>1和P<0.05为阈值,筛选出23种差异成分。采用ROAV法分析S样品的豆腥味,结果表明该气味可能与己醛、2-戊基呋喃和1-辛烯-3-醇的存在有关。加工后,这些成分含量降低,并产生了3-甲基丁醛、2-乙酰基吡咯和苯乙醛等新成分。相应地,Z和M样品分别具有焦香和蜜香。Z样品的焦香主要与3-甲基丁醛和2-乙酰基吡咯等杂环化合物的产生有关。M样品的蜜香主要与苯乙醛等芳香烃的产生有关。使用蜜麸作为辅料可能导致建昌帮方法生产的M样品比《中国药典》方法生产的Z样品具有更浓郁的蜜香。