Study on the Correlation between Color Change and Quality of Mengding Yellow Bud by Different Processing Procedure

LIU Xiao; ZHANG Ting; TANG Xiaobo; WANG Xiaoping; MA Weiwei; ZHANG Juan; LI Chunhua; WANG Yun

doi:10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2020100194

Volume 42 Issue 13

Jun. 2021

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Abstract

References

Science and Technology of Food Industry > 2021 > 42(13): 111-117. > DOI: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2020100194

LIU Xiao, ZHANG Ting, TANG Xiaobo, et al. Study on the Correlation between Color Change and Quality of Mengding Yellow Bud by Different Processing Procedure[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2021, 42(13): 111−117. (in Chinese with English abstract). doi: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2020100194.

Citation:

PDF (775 KB)

Study on the Correlation between Color Change and Quality of Mengding Yellow Bud by Different Processing Procedure

Tea Research Institute of Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Chengdu 610066, China

More Information

Received Date: October 22, 2020
Available Online: April 24, 2021

Graphical Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

This paper studied the color of Mengding yellow bud dry tea, soup color and leaf base made by different processing procedures, and carried out pigment component detection and quality evaluation. The correlation between L ^*, a^*, b^* value of dry tea, soup color and leaf base color and the score of each evaluation factor, pigment content and total quality score was analyzed, so as to provide a certain reference for the evaluation of yellow tea dullness and color. The L^*a^*b^* values of dry tea, soup color and leaf bottom were measured by CR410 color difference meter, and then the significant analysis was made with the scores of dry tea, soup color and leaf base, and the correlation analysis was made with the scores of tea pigment, chlorophyll and total quality. The results showed that the L^*, a^*, b^* values of dry tea were significantly or extremely significantly correlated with the scores of color evaluation (P<0.05, P<0.01), the L^*, a^*, b^* values of tea soup were significantly correlated with the scores of color evaluation (P<0.01), and the correlation coefficients were −0.93, 0.97, 0.93, respectively. The L^*, a^*, b^* values of leaf bottom were extremely significantly correlated with the scores of leaf base(P<0.01), and the correlation coefficients were −0.96, 0.97, 0.98, respectively . The L^* value of dry tea, soup color and leaf base was significantly negatively correlated with tea pigment content (P<0.01), and the a^* and b^* values were significantly positively correlated with tea pigment content(P<0.01). The L^* values of dry tea, soup color and leaf base were significantly positively correlated with chlorophyll content(P<0.01), while the a^* and b^* values were significantly negatively correlated with chlorophyll content(P<0.01). The correlation between sensory quality and L^*, a^*, b^* value and pigment of Mengding yellow bud was as follows: It was significantly negatively correlated with L^* value of dry tea, L^* value of soup color, L^* value of leaf base, chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b content (P<0.01), and significantly or significantly positively correlated with a^*b^* value of dry tea, a^*b^* value of soup color, a^*b^* value of leaf base and tea pigment content (P<0.05, P<0.01), except a^* value of dry tea, The correlation coefficients were all above 0.80. The results showed that the lab value measurement method could provide a theoretical basis for the study of the correlation between the color and quality of yellow tea.
- Mengding yellow bud,
- processing procedure,
- color change,
- quality,
- correlation

FullText(HTML)

References (30)

References

[1]	滑金杰, 江用文, 袁海波, 等. 闷黄过程中黄茶生化成分变化及其影响因子研究进展[J]. 茶叶科学,2015,35(3):203−208. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-369X.2015.03.002
[2]	夏涛. 制茶学[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版2014: 147-148.
[3]	Gramza-Michałowska A, Kobus-Cisowska J, Kmiecik D, et al. Antioxidative potential, nutritional value and sensory profiles of confectionery fortified with green and yellow tea leaves (Camellia sinensis)[J]. Food Chemistry,2016,211:448−454. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.05.048
[4]	Kujawska M, Ewertowska M, Adamska T, et al. Protective effect of yellow tea extract on N-nitrosodiethylamine-induced liver carcinogenesis[J]. Pharmaceutical Biology,2016,54(9):1891−1900. doi: 10.3109/13880209.2015.1137600
[5]	Xu J Y, Wang M, Zhao J P, et al. Yellow tea (Camellia sinensis L.), a promising Chinese tea: Processing, chemical constituents and health benefits[J]. Food Research International,2018,107:567−577. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.01.063
[6]	范方媛, 杨晓蕾, 龚淑英, 等. 基于浙江部分主栽品种的黄茶滋味特征及化学组分贡献研究[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版),2019,45(4):443−451.
[7]	张明露, 彭玙舒, 尹杰. 不同闷黄时间和温度对黄茶品质的影响[J]. 耕作与栽培,2020(3):12−14.
[8]	文帅, 安然, 李冬利, 等. 不同闷黄工艺对黄茶品质及其抑制HepG2细胞增殖的影响[J]. 茶叶通讯,2020,47(1):75−81. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-525X.2020.01.014
[9]	滑金杰, 尹军峰, 袁海波, 等. 温州黄汤闷堆和闷烘工艺[J]. 江苏农业科学,2017,45(2):173−177.
[10]	李兰兰, 张鹏程, 肖文军, 等. 夏季茶鲜叶加工花香型黄茶的品质变化研究[J]. 茶叶通讯,2020,47(1):82−88. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-525X.2020.01.015
[11]	尹鹏, 刘威, 刘盼盼, 等. 黄茶及其茶毫挥发性成分分析[J]. 食品安全质量检测学报,2018,9(2):271−274.
[12]	李丹, 杜晓, 边金霖, 等. 蒙顶山黄茶“酶促闷黄”加工品质的审评及成分分析[J]. 云南大学学报(自然科学版),2016,38(3):477−486.
[13]	刘晓, 张厅, 刘飞, 等. 蒙顶黄茶闷黄过程中主要品质成分及酶活性变化研究[J]. 中国农学通报,2017,33(27):97−101. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb16080075
[14]	范方媛, 杨晓蕾, 龚淑英, 等. 闷黄工艺因子对黄茶品质及滋味化学组分的影响研究[J]. 茶叶科学,2019,39(1):63−73. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-369X.2019.01.007
[15]	范方媛, 唐贵珍, 龚淑英, 等. 典型黄茶滋味品质特征属性及相关滋味化学组分[J]. 中国农业科学,2020,53(2):371−382. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.02.011
[16]	王治会. 黄茶闷黄中化学成分变化的动力学模型及滋味接受性研究[D]. 重庆: 西南大学, 2017: 13.
[17]	王治会, 岳翠男, 毛世红, 等. 黄茶主要滋味化学成分与感官滋味接受性研究[J]. 食品与发酵工业,2018,44(3):77−83.
[18]	张娇, 梁壮仙, 张拓, 等. 黄茶加工中主要品质成分的动态变化[J]. 食品科学,2019,40(16):200−205. doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-20181004-015
[19]	王璟, 高静, 刘思彤, 等. 基于色差系统的黄茶外观色泽评价模型构建及其关键物质基础分析[J]. 食品科学,2017,38(17):145−150. doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201717024
[20]	王家勤, 姚月凤, 袁海波, 等. 基于色差系统的工夫红茶茶汤亮度的量化评价方法研究[J]. 茶叶科学,2020,40(2):259−268. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-369X.2020.02.012
[21]	滑金杰, 袁海波, 姚月凤, 等. 温度对茶发酵叶色泽及茶色素含量的影响[J]. 农业工程学报,2018,34(12):300−308. doi: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2018.12.038
[22]	余书平, 尹军峰, 袁海波, 等. 小叶种红茶发酵外观色差及其主要品质成分相关性[J]. 食品安全质量检测学报,2015,6(6):2201−2208.
[23]	赵飞, 马圣洲, 吴琴燕, 等. 色差法监测红茶发酵适度技术[J]. 江苏农业科学,2017,45(10):157−160.
[24]	国家质量监督检验检疫总局. GB/T 23776-2018 茶叶感官审评方法[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2018.
[25]	黄意欢. 茶学实验技术[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2002: 135−136. .
[26]	徐华. 混合液法测定茶树叶片叶绿素含量[J]. 龙岩师专学报(自然科学版),1995,13(3):94−95.
[27]	杨娟, 袁林颖, 钟应富, 等. 工夫红茶色泽与品质相关性研究[J]. 西南农业学报,2014,27(6):2605−2610.
[28]	孟爱丽, 庞晓莉, 温顺位, 等. 蒙顶黄芽香气特征及香气成分分析[J]. 食品工业科技,2014,35(18):106−117.
[29]	周继荣, 陈玉琼, 孙娅, 等. 鹿苑茶闷堆工艺研究[J]. 食品科学,2005,26(11):107−111. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1002-6630.2005.11.022
[30]	Lakshiprasad B, Paban B, Santanu S, et al. Spatial variability of theaflavins and thearubigins fractions and their impact on black tea quality[J]. Journal of Food Science and Technology,2015,52(12):7984−7993. doi: 10.1007/s13197-015-1968-z

Supplements (0)

Cited By

Cited by

Periodical cited type(7)

1.	王如月，虎海防，罗莎莎，甄紫怡，徐业勇，胡晓静. 杏李不同采收成熟度果实品质分析. 中国农业科技导报(中英文). 2025(02): 158-169 .
2.	孙建城，王登亮，马创举，刘丽丽，陈骏，刘春荣，吴群. 不同采收期对华柑4号柑橘果实品质的影响. 中国果树. 2024(07): 67-73 .
3.	宋欣悦，吕靖芳，戴芬，朱作艺. 不同采收成熟度菲油果营养品质评价. 农产品质量与安全. 2024(05): 20-24+72 .
4.	方玉凤，温宝阳，王英东. 黑龙江省野生山刺玫优良种源选择利用研究. 林业科技. 2024(06): 1-6 .
5.	赵妍，祝文雪，李先宽，高鑫，付鲲，张坚. 酸枣种质资源表型多样性及营养成分分析. 种子. 2024(11): 120-126 .
6.	吴斌，苏金生，邢文婷，宋顺，马伏宁，黄东梅. 不同品种百香果果实转色期糖酸品质性状评价. 果树学报. 2024(12): 2532-2542 .
7.	李星星，周国富，骆官雨，陈思蓉，张金龙，陈国华，张晓明. 橘小实蝇对不同品种苹果的选择偏好及适应性. 中国农业科学. 2023(17): 3358-3371 .