Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41623970›Full record

ArticleFood chemistry: X2026

Unraveling the impacts of different processing methods on hawk tea's volatiles and flavor via non-targeted Volatilomics approach.

Feng Xie, Hong Zhang, Sixia Jiang, Mingji Xiao, Hao Hu, Ya Song, Xudong Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Food chemistry: X, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Feng XieSchool of Food Engineering, Moutai Institute, Renhuai 564507, Guizhou, China.
Hong ZhangSchool of Food Engineering, Moutai Institute, Renhuai 564507, Guizhou, China.
Sixia JiangSchool of Food Engineering, Moutai Institute, Renhuai 564507, Guizhou, China.
Mingji XiaoInstitute of Biology, Guizhou, Academy of Sciences, Guiyang 550009, PR China.
Hao HuSchool of Food Engineering, Moutai Institute, Renhuai 564507, Guizhou, China.
Ya SongSchool of Food Engineering, Moutai Institute, Renhuai 564507, Guizhou, China.
Xudong LiuSchool of Food Engineering, Moutai Institute, Renhuai 564507, Guizhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To systematically explore how processing regulates the volatile metabolites and flavor of Hawk Tea (Litsea coreana), this study used non-targeted volatilomics, HS-SPME-GC-MS, and multivariate analysis (including K-means clustering) to analyze four samples with varying fermentation degrees (non-fermented green, slightly fermented white, semi-fermented oolong, deeply fermented black). A total of 379 volatile metabolites were identified, with terpenoids (28.0%) and esters (18.5%) forming the "floral-fruity" aroma foundation. K-means clustering (k = 6) grouped differential volatiles into fermentation-responsive subgroups. Fermentation reduced terpenoids/aldehydes (grassy aroma) and increased esters/heterocyclic compounds (sweet/caramel aroma); semi- and deeply fermented samples had 3.4- and 2.9-fold higher total volatiles than non-fermented ones. The rOAV ≥1 identified 90 key aroma compounds (10 core compounds). Sensory evaluation showed fermentation darkened soup color (yellow-green→orange-red), shifted aroma (camphor→fruity→sweet), and reduced astringency. KEGG analysis enriched aroma-related pathways (e.g., phenylpropanoid biosynthesis). The "processing-volatile-flavor" model provides a basis for standardizing Hawk Tea processing and improving quality.

Indexed as

Flavor characteristicsHawk teaKey aroma compoundsProcessing methodsVolatile metabolites

Identifiers

PMID41623970
PMCPMC12853061

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.