Phytochemical Composition and Antioxidant Capacity of 30 Chinese Teas
by
,
Guo-Yi Tang
1,†, 
Cai-Ning Zhao
1,†,
Xiao-Yu Xu
1,
Ren-You Gan
2,*,
Shi-Yu Cao
1,
Qing Liu
1,
Ao Shang
1,
Qian-Qian Mao
1 and
Hua-Bin Li
1,* 1
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Food, Nutrition and Health, Department of Nutrition, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China
2
Department of Food Science & Technology, School of Agriculture and Biology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Antioxidants 2019, 8(6), 180; https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox8060180
Submission received: 31 May 2019
/
Revised: 12 June 2019
/
Accepted: 14 June 2019
/
Published: 18 June 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antioxidant Activity of Polyphenolic Plant Extracts)
Abstract
:Tea has been reported to prevent and manage many chronic diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular diseases, and the antioxidant capacity of tea may be responsible for these health benefits. In this study, the antioxidant capacities of fat-soluble, water-soluble, and bound-insoluble fractions of 30 Chinese teas belonging to six categories, namely green, black, oolong, dark, white, and yellow teas, were systematically evaluated, applying ferric-reducing antioxidant power and Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity assays. In addition, total phenolic contents of teas were determined by Folin–Ciocalteu method, and the contents of 18 main phytochemical compounds in teas were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The results found that several teas possessed very strong antioxidant capacity, and caffeine, theaflavine, gallic acid, chlorogenic acid, ellagic acid, and kaempferol-3-O-glucoside, as well as eight catechins, were the main antioxidant compounds in them. Thus, these teas could be good natural sources of dietary antioxidants, and their extracts might be developed as food additives, nutraceuticals, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals.
1. Introduction
Tea is generally made from the leaves of Camellia sinensis, and is a very popular soft drink all over the world. Based on the fermentation degrees in an increasing order, tea can be classified into six categories, including green (unfermented), yellow (slight-fermented), white (mild-fermented), oolong (semi-fermented), black (deep-fermented), and dark (post-fermented) teas [1]. Tea has been widely associated with various health functions, such as the cardiovascular protective, anticancer, antidiabetic, antiobesity, neuroprotective, and hepatoprotective effects [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. These beneficial effects can be mainly attributed to the natural antioxidant phytochemicals in tea, especially polyphenols, which may undergo big differences in different teas with diverse genotypes, maturity, producing areas, or fermentation degrees [11,12,13,14,15].
In the present study, the antioxidant capacity of 30 tea samples, which are the best-selling and most commonly consumed teas in China, were systematically evaluated. In addition, their total phenolic contents were determined, and main antioxidant phytochemicals were identified and quantified by HPLC. The results should be helpful for the development of tea-based products, such as food additives, cosmetics, nutraceuticals, and pharmaceuticals.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Chemicals
The 2,2′-azinobis(3-ethylbenothiazoline-6-sulphonic acid) diammonium salt (ABTS), 6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchromane-2-carboxylic acid (Trolox), 2,4,6-tri(2-pyridyl)-s-triazine (TPTZ), and Folin–Ciocalteu’s phenol reagent were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). The 18 standard compounds for high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis were obtained from Derick Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (Chengdu, China). Tetrahydrofuran, methanol, formic acid, diethyl ether, and ethyl acetate were acquired from Kermel Chemical Factory (Tianjin, China). Acetic acid, sodium acetate, sodium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, ascorbic acid, iron(III) chloride hexahydrate, iron(II) sulphate heptahydrate, potassium persulphate, sodium carbonate, ethanol, and n-hexane were bought from Damao Chemical Factory (Tianjin, China). All the reagents were of analytical or HPLC grade, and deionized water was used for all experiments.
2.2. Sample Preparation
The 30 common Chinese teas are widely consumed and famous in China. The basic information of these teas is presented in Table 1. The fat-soluble, water-soluble, and bound-insoluble fractions of these teas were acquired using tetrahydrofuran, methanol-acetic acid-water (50:3.7:46.3, v/v/v), and diethyl ether-ethyl acetate (1:1, v/v) with alkaline digestion according to the procedures described in the literature [16,17,18]. All extracts were preserved at −20 °C before being subjected to relevant tests.
2.3. Ferric-Reducing Antioxidant Power (FRAP) Assay
The ferric-reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) assay was conducted according to the method established by Benzie and Strain [19]. FeSO4 was used as the standard, and the value was presented as μmol Fe(II)/g dry weight (DW) of the tea.
2.4. Trolox Equivalent Antioxidant Capacity (TEAC) Assay
The Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC) assay was performed based on the procedure reported by Re et al. [20]. Trolox was applied as the standard, and the value was displayed as μmol Trolox/g DW of the tea.
2.5. Determination of Total Phenolic Content (TPC)
Determination of total phenolic content (TPC) was carried out as described by Singleton et al. [21]. Gallic acid was adopted as the standard, and the value was described as mg gallic acid equivalent (mg GAE)/g DW of the tea.
2.6. Detection of Phytochemicals by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)
Caffeine, theaflavine, and polyphenols in the extracts were detected by HPLC based on the literature reported by Cai et al. [22] with small alterations. Briefly, the testing system was comprised of a Waters (Milford, MA, USA) 1525 binary HPLC pump separation module with an auto-injector, a Waters 2996 photodiode array detector (PDAD) and an Agilent Zorbax Extend-C18 column (250 × 4.6 mm, 5 μm, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Gradient elution was performed at 35 °C with the mobile phase composed of methanol (solution A) and 0.1% formic acid solution (solution B), which were routinely delivered at a flow rate of 1.0 mL/min according to the procedure: 0 min, 5% (A); 10 min, 20% (A); 15 min, 22% (A); 20 min, 25% (A); 40 min, 40% (A); 50 min, 42% (A); 60 min, 50% (A); 70 min, 95% (A); 70.10 min, 5% (A); 75 min, 5% (A). A 20 µL of extract sample was injected for HPLC analysis. The spectra were recorded between 200 and 600 nm, and the targeted compounds were identified by retention time and UV-Vis spectra in comparison with the standards and quantified based on the peak area under the maximum absorption wavelength. The value was expressed as mg/g DW of the tea.
2.7. Data Analysis
All tests were performed in triplicate, and the values were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). SPSS 22 (International Business Machines Corp, Armonk, NY, USA) and Excel 2007 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) were applied for data analysis. One-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test were performed to compare means of more than two samples, and p value less than 0.05 was defined as statistical significance.
3. Results
3.1. Ferric-Reducing Antioxidant Power (FRAP) Values of the Tested Teas
FRAP value was used as an important indicator for the antioxidant capacity with regard to reducing ferric ions to ferrous ions, and FRAP results of the 30 teas are displayed in Table 2. The total FRAP values ranged from 611.18 ± 5.09 to 5375.18 ± 228.43 μmol Fe (II)/g DW with a 9-fold difference. Dianqing Tea, Xihu Longjing Tea, Dongting Biluochun Tea, Yongxi Huoqing Tea, and Duyun Maojian Tea exerted the top five reducing capacities, namely 5375.18 ± 228.43, 3926.32 ± 56.00, 3845.21 ± 44.17, 3752.52 ± 96.75, and 3664.97 ± 53.33, μmol Fe(II)/g DW, respectively. Tibetan Tea exhibited the lowest reducing ability of 611.18 ± 5.09 μmol Fe(II)/g DW. In addition, according to the statistical description and non-parametric tests (Table 3), the FRAP values for the three fractions met the following order: water-soluble > bound-insoluble > fat-soluble.
3.2. Trolox Equivalent Antioxidant Capacity (TEAC) Values of the Tested Teas
TEAC value was an important index of free radical-scavenging capacity, and the results of the 30 Chinese teas are presented in Table 4. The total TEAC values varied from 326.32 ± 0.48 to 3004.40 ± 112.89 μmol Trolox/g DW with a 9-fold difference. Dianqing Tea, Junshan Yinzhen Tea, Mengding Huangya Tea, Weishan Maojian Tea, and Xihu Longjing Tea showed the top five free radical-scavenging capacities, namely, 3004.40 ± 112.89, 2418.71 ± 26.70, 2303.72 ± 53.67, 2250.40 ± 37.95 and 2125.92 ± 44.43 μmol Trolox/g DW, respectively. Tibetan Tea had the lowest free radical-scavenging capacity of 326.32 ± 0.48 μmol Trolox/g DW. Moreover, according to the statistical description and non-parametric tests (Table 3), TEAC values for the three fractions met the following order: water-soluble > bound-insoluble > fat-soluble bound.
3.3. Total Phenolic Content (TPC) of the Tested Teas
TPC was adopted to measure the total contents of phenolic compounds in the 30 Chinese teas, and the results are shown in Table 5. Briefly, the range of total TPC values was 37.25 ± 0.16 to 254.29 ± 15.51 mg GAE/g DW with a 7-fold difference. Dianqing Tea, Xihu Longjing Tea, Junshan Yinzhen Tea, Dongting Biluochun Tea, and Yuan’an Luyuan Tea possessed the top five total phenolic contents, namely 254.29 ± 15.51, 215.39 ± 11.87, 214.72 ± 3.22, 211.20 ± 2.52, and 210.05 ± 7.84 mg GAE/g DW, respectively. Tibetan Tea was observed with the lowest TPC of 37.25 ± 0.16 mg GAE/g DW. In addition, based on the statistical description and non-parametric tests (Table 3), the TPC values for the three fractions met the following order: water-soluble > bound-insoluble > fat-soluble.
3.4. Correlations among Ferric-Reducing Antioxidant Power (FRAP), Trolox Equivalent Antioxidant Capacity (TEAC), and Total Phenolic Content (TPC) Values
The correlations among FRAP, TEAC, and TPC values (based on the total values of three fractions) were determined by the simple linear regression model, and the results are presented in Figure 1. Both FRAP and TEAC values were significantly and positively correlated with TPC (R² = 0.883, p < 0.001 and R² = 0.941, p < 0.001, respectively). These results suggested that the phenolic compounds could be the main components contributing to the antioxidant activities of tea. In addition, FRAP values were positively and remarkably correlated with TEAC values (R² = 0.928, p < 0.001). Therefore, the antioxidants in tea could possess multiple functions regarding reducing oxidants (like Fe(III)) and scavenging free radicals (like ABTS•+).
3.5. Systematic Cluster of the Tested Teas
Based on the FRAP, TEAC, and TPC values, a systematic cluster analysis for the 30 teas was conducted with cluster numbers from 2 to 6, and the results are summarized in Figure 2. After that, the outcomes of cluster number = 4 were further analyzed using Online Analytical Processing (OLAP) accompanied with variance analysis (ANOVA), and the results are presented in Table 6. In detail, cluster 1 contained 12 teas, which were 4 black teas, 4 dark teas, 3 white teas, and 1 green tea, with the lowest values for FRAP, TEAC, and TPC (1050.03 ± 317.40 μmol Fe(II)/g DW, 600.57 ± 194.85 μmol Trolox/g DW, and 84.66 ± 27.90 mg GAE/g DW, respectively). In addition, cluster 2 comprised all the 4 oolong teas, 1 dark tea, and 1 yellow tea, with relatively low values for FRAP, TEAC, and TPC (2207.42 ± 342.61 μmol Fe(II)/g DW, 1416.88 ± 146.80 μmol Trolox/g DW and 167.83 ± 17.30 mg GAE/g DW, respectively). Moreover, cluster 3 consisted of 7 green teas and 4 yellow teas, with apparently high values for FRAP, TEAC, and TPC (3528.45 ± 265.76 μmol Fe(II)/g DW, 2089.27 ± 180.60 μmol Trolox/g DW, and 203.61 ± 11.11 mg GAE/g DW, respectively). Furthermore, cluster 4 included only 1 tea (green tea), with FRAP, TEAC, and TPC values the highest (5375.18 ± 228.43 μmol Fe(II)/g DW, 3004.40 ± 112.89 μmol Trolox/g DW, and 254.29 ± 15.51 mg GAE/g DW, respectively). Based on the result of ANOVA, all of the differences among the 4 clusters regarding FRAP, TEAC, and TPC values were significant (all p < 0.001).
3.6. Contents of Phytochemical Compounds in Teas
Main phytochemicals in 30 Chinese teas, including main catechins (Table 7), caffeine, theaflavine, and other polyphenols (Table 8), were determined by HPLC-PDAD. The chromatograms of the mixed standards and the samples of Dianqing Tea and Tibetan Tea under 254 nm are shown in Figure 3. Eight catechins, including catechin, epicatechin, gallocatechin, epigallocatechin, catechin gallate, epicatechin gallate, gallocatechin gallate, epigallocatechin gallate, four other phenolic compounds, including gallic acid, chlorogenic acid, ellagic acid, and kaempferol-3-O-glucoside, caffeine, and theaflavine, were identified in the 30 teas, with epigallocatechin gallate, gallic acid, and caffeine detected and quantified in all Chinese tea samples.
Catechins are the most abundant bioactive compounds in teas. In this study, it was found that epigallocatechin gallate was rich in the tested teas, with a range of 0.539 ± 0.013 to 59.354 ± 1.131 mg/g DW, but the difference was apparently large (up to a 110-fold difference). Green, yellow, and oolong teas were comprised of abundant epigallocatechin, but dark, black, and white teas were not. Dianqing Tea, Yuan’an Luyuan Tea, Xihu Longjing Tea, Yongxi Huoqing Tea, and Junshan Yinzhen Tea contained the top-five contents of epigallocatechin gallate, showing 59.354 ± 1.131, 57.230 ± 0.253, 51.734 ± 0.240, 50.947 ± 0.396, and 50.777 ± 0.224 mg/g DW, respectively. Dianhong Tea, with 0.539 ± 0.013 mg/g DW of epigallocatechin gallate was the lowest one. Additionally, these tea samples, especially green, yellow, and oolong teas, were also detected with remarkably high contents of epigallocatechin (2.288 ± 0.050 to 139.854 ± 1.075 mg/g DW), epicatechin (0.477 ± 0.030 to 13.723 ± 0.216 mg/g DW), and epigallocatechin gallate (0.455 ± 0.037 to 35.395 ± 0.568 mg/g DW). Tieguanyin Tea (139.854 ± 1.075 mg/g DW), Luohan Chenxiang Tea (125.439 ± 0.678 mg/g DW), Lu’an Guapian Tea (100.684 ± 0.561 mg/g DW), Taiping Houkui Tea (74.212 ± 0226 mg/g DW), and Lushan Yunwu Tea (53.447 ± 0.326 mg/g DW) possessed the top-five contents of epigallocatechin. Tieguanyin Tea (13.723 ± 0.216 mg/g DW), Fuzhuan Brick Tea (10.357 ± 0.268 mg/g DW), Weishan Maojian Tea (10.062 ± 0.040 mg/g DW), Duyun Maojian Tea (8.700 ± 0.429 mg/g DW), and Taiping Houkui Tea (8.580 ± 0.211 mg/g DW) contained the top-five contents of epicatechin. Dianqing Tea (35.395 ± 0.568 mg/g DW), Juanshan Yinzhen Tea (30.491 ± 0.101 mg/g DW), Dongting Biluochun Tea (27.893 ± 0.426 mg/g DW), Weishan Maojian Tea (24.710 ± 0.247 mg/g DW), and Mengding Huangya Tea (23.805 ± 0.075 mg/g DW) were shown with the top-five contents of epicatechin gallate.
In addition, for other phytochemical compounds besides catechins in teas, the content of gallic acid was low in all tea samples, ranging from 0.294 ± 0.021 to 3.822 ± 0.111 mg/g DW with a 13-fold difference. Huoshan Large Yellow Tea, Yichang Congou Black Tea, Fenghuang Shuixian Tea, Fuzhuan Brick Tea, and Keemun Black Tea possessed the top-five contents of gallic acid, which were 3.822 ± 0.111, 3.546 ± 0.050, 3.284 ± 0.141, 3.097 ± 0.122, and 2.706 ± 0.117 mg/g DW, respectively. Tieguanyin Tea was shown to have the lowest content of gallic acid, which was 0.294 ± 0.021 mg/g DW. Similarly, the contents of chlorogenic acid, ellagic acid, and kaempferol-3-O-glucoside were also relatively low in the tested teas.
As polyphenols were suggested as the main antioxidants in teas (Figure 1), we next analyzed the relationships of different polyphenols and antioxidant activities of teas. It was found that the content of catechins had moderate positive correlations (Figure 4A,B) with FRAP values (R2 = 0.476, p < 0.001) and TEAC values (R2 = 0.515, p < 0.001), while the content of noncatechin polyphenols had no evident linear correlations (Figure 4C,D) with FRAP values (R2 = 0.001, p = 0.867) and TEAC values (R2 = 0.002, p = 0.819). These results indicate that catechins can be one of the main antioxidants in tea, but noncatechin polyphenols should not be the main contributors.
In addition to this, each tea contained relatively high caffeine content, which varied from 12.273 ± 0.040 to 41.631 ± 0.312 mg/g DW with a small difference (only a 3-fold difference). Yichang Congou Black Tea, Junshan Yinzhen Tea, Yuan’an Luyuan Tea, Dianqing Tea, and Xihu Longjing Tea comprised the top-five content of caffeine, namely 41.631 ± 0.312, 41.457 ± 0.322, 40.737 ± 0.116, 39.764 ± 0.382, and 38.508 ± 0.117 mg/g DW, respectively. The 12.273 ± 0.040 mg/g DW of caffeine in Qingzhuan Brick Tea was the lowest.
Furthermore, Wuyi Rock Tea (oolong tea) and Fuzhuan Brick Tea (dark tea) as well as all of the 4 black teas (Yichang Congou Black Tea, Keemun Black Tea, Dianhong Congou Black Tea, and Lapsang Souchong Black Tea) were found with a spot of theaflavine, and the contents were 0.545 ± 0.011, 0.480 ± 0.008, 0.559 ± 0.018, 0.542 ± 0.010, 0.526 ± 0.019, and 0.488 ± 0.012 mg/g DW, respectively.
4. Discussion
4.1. Antioxidant Capacities of the Tested Chinese Teas
Many natural products, such as vegetables, fruits, and medicinal plants, possess rich phytochemicals, some of which have been recognized as strong antioxidants [23,24,25,26,27,28,29]. These natural antioxidants are often multifunctional, and their antioxidant capacities can be generally influenced by various factors, e.g., the extraction solvents, extraction conditions, and measurement methods, resulting in the difficulty to completely illustrate the antioxidant capacities only applying a single method [30,31]. In order to maximize the extraction yields of antioxidants from tea, 3 solvents × 2 repeated extraction were adopted in this study [32]. In addition, a reliable antioxidant assessing system demands comprehensive indices, which comprise different experiments to evaluate the antioxidant capacity with diverse mechanisms of action. The FRAP assay was set up based on the power of antioxidants to reduce ferric ions to ferrous ions [19], while the TEAC assay was established on the basis of the capacity of antioxidants to scavenge the ABTS•+ free radicals [20]. These two assays are simple, fast, repeatable, and widely used for the evaluation of antioxidant capacity [33,34,35]. In this study, FRAP and TEAC assays were simultaneously used to assess the antioxidant capacities of the 30 Chinese teas.
The FRAP and TEAC values of the tested teas were extremely high compared with other natural products (Table 9). That is, the antioxidant capacities of tea were higher than those of most medicinal plants, edible macro-fungi, vegetables, fruits, fruit wastes (peels and seeds), and wild fruits, as well as edible and wild flowers [33,34,35]. This may be explained by the apparently higher content of phenolic compounds in tea, as revealed in Table 8. Therefore, teas rich in antioxidants may be important natural sources of dietary antioxidants, and their extracts can be used to produce food additives, cosmetics, nutraceuticals, and pharmaceuticals.
Moreover, the FRAP and TEAC values of water-soluble fractions were remarkably higher than those of bound-insoluble fractions, which were mildly higher than those of fat-soluble fractions. These results suggested that the components responsible for the ferric-reducing power and ABTS free radical-scavenging capacity of teas were most water-soluble compounds (approximately 87–93%) with some bound-insoluble (about 5–8%) and fat-soluble (roughly 2–5%) ones.
4.2. Antioxidant Phytochemical Components of the Tested Chinese Teas
As demonstrated previously, there were significant and remarkable correlations among FRAP, TEAC, and TPC values. These results suggested that the phenolic compounds could be the major components contributing to the antioxidant capacities of tea, which possessed multiple effects to reduce oxidants and scavenge free radicals. The outcomes demonstrated above were consistent with several previous studies, which have reported that phenolic components were the main contributors responsible for the antioxidant capacities of vegetables, macro-fungi, wild fruits, and flowers [23,37,38,39]. Moreover, many polyphenols have been detected in these natural products, e.g., gallic acid, chlorogenic acid, ferulic acid, anthocyanins, quercetin, rutin, myricetin, and kaempferol glycosides, which exhibited potent antioxidant capacities both in vitro and in vivo [23,37,38,39]. Antioxidant action can be one of the most important mechanisms of the health benefits of these natural products [41,42,43]. As for tea, eight catechins, caffeine, theaflavine, gallic acid, chlorogenic acid, ellagic acid, and kaempferol-3-O-glucoside, could be detected. Among them, epicatechin, epigallocatechin, epicatechin gallate, and epigallocatechin gallate were the most abundant polyphenols in tea, especially in the green, yellow, and oolong teas, which generally undergo a low degree of fermentation. Though tea and other natural products contain several common antioxidants, their contents in tea are generally higher.
Tea polyphenols may exert antioxidant capacities through the following mechanisms: (1) straightly reducing oxidants; (2) chelating metal ions; (3) transferring hydrogen; (4) scavenging free radicals; (5) improving activities of antioxidant enzymes; (6) increasing contents of endogenous antioxidants; and (7) regulating antioxidant-related genes [4,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. All of these actions lead to the health functions of tea, such as anticancer, cardiovascular protective, neuroprotective, hepatoprotective, and renoprotective effects [6,52,53,54,55,56]. Thus, several teas rich in antioxidants can be developed into functional foods or nutraceuticals to prevent and treat certain oxidative stress-related chronic diseases.
4.3. Comparison of Antioxidant Phytochemicals among Different Chinese Teas
In the light of the outcomes from systematic cluster analysis accompanied by OLAP and ANOVA for cluster number = 4, green tea and yellow tea possessed remarkably high antioxidant capacities and phenolic contents, but Lu’an Guapian Tea (green tea) and Huoshan Large Yellow Tea (yellow tea) were the exceptions. In addition, oolong tea was in the middle position. Meanwhile, white tea, black tea, and dark tea exerted relatively low antioxidant capacities and phenolic contents. Thus, fermentation degree can be a crucial factor that influences the antioxidant capacity and phenolic content of tea. Tea undergoing higher fermentation degree might have lower antioxidant capacity and phenolic content, since tea polyphenols, especially catechins, may oxidize and polymerize during fermentation, generating complicated tea pigments like theaflavins, thearubigins, and theabrownins [57,58,59]. Moreover, the maturity of tea leaves should also be taken into consideration, because the antioxidant capacity and phenolic content would decrease accompanied with the increase of tea leaf maturity [60], which may partially explain why white tea (made of old tea leaves) exhibited relatively low antioxidant capacity and phenolic content, although it has a low fermentation degree. On the other hand, it was reported that the bioavailability of fermented tea using microbes, such as bacteria, yeasts, and fungi, could be significantly higher compared to unfermented tea [61,62]. For example, green and black teas have been observed to improve endothelial function with equal effectiveness, although green tea possesses higher antioxidant activity and phenolic content, it has a lower bioavailability [63].
5. Conclusions
In conclusion, teas here studied possessed remarkably high antioxidant capacities regarding ferric-reducing and free radical-scavenging capacities. In addition, eight catechins, caffeine, theaflavine, and several other phenolic compounds, including gallic acid, chlorogenic acid, ellagic acid, and kaempferol-3-O-glucoside, were detected in these Chinese teas. Compared with dark, black, and white teas, green, yellow, and oolong teas exerted stronger antioxidant capacity and contained more polyphenols, especially catechins like epicatechin, epigallocatechin, epicatechin gallate, and epigallocatechin gallate. Overall, tea is a good natural source of dietary antioxidant phytochemicals, and can be used to produce food additives, functional foods, nutraceuticals, and cosmetics.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, R.-Y.G. and H.-B.L.; Data curation, C.-N.Z.; Formal analysis, G.-Y.T.; Funding acquisition, R.-Y.G. and H.-B.L.; Investigation, G.-Y.T., C.-N.Z., X.-Y.X., S.-Y.C., Q.L., A.S. and Q.-Q.M.; Methodology, G.-Y.T., C.-N.Z. and H.-B.L.; Project administration, R.-Y.G. and H.-B.L.; Resources, G.-Y.T.; Software, G.-Y.T.; Supervision, R.-Y.G. and H.-B.L.; Validation, G.-Y.T., C.-N.Z., R.-Y.G. and H.-B.L.; Visualization, C.-N.Z.; Writing—original draft, G.-Y.T. and C.-N.Z.; Writing—review & editing, R.-Y.G. and H.-B.L.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2018YFC1604400); Shanghai Basic and Key Program (18JC1410800); Shanghai Pujiang Talent Plan (18PJ1404600).
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Hashimoto, T.; Goto, M.; Sakakibara, H.; Oi, N.; Okamoto, M.; Kanazawa, K. Yellow tea is more potent than other types of tea in suppressing liver toxicity induced by carbon tetrachloride in rats. Phytother. Res. 2007, 21, 668–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Braud, L.; Battault, S.; Meyer, G.; Nascimento, A.; Gaillard, S.; de Sousa, G.; Rahmani, R.; Riva, C.; Armand, M.; Maixent, J.M.; et al. Antioxidant properties of tea blunt ROS-dependent lipogenesis: Beneficial effect on hepatic steatosis in a high fat-high sucrose diet NAFLD obese rat model. J. Nutr. Biochem. 2017, 40, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Lorenzo, A.; Nabavi, S.F.; Sureda, A.; Moghaddam, A.H.; Khanjani, S.; Arcidiaco, P.; Nabavi, S.M.; Daglia, M. Antidepressive-like effects and antioxidant activity of green tea and GABA green tea in a mouse model of post-stroke depression. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2016, 60, 566–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guo, Y.J.; Sun, L.Q.; Yu, B.Y.; Qi, J. An integrated antioxidant activity fingerprint for commercial teas based on their capacities to scavenge reactive oxygen species. Food Chem. 2017, 237, 645–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, Y.H.; Won, Y.S.; Yang, X.; Kumazoe, M.; Yamashita, S.; Hara, A.; Takagaki, A.; Goto, K.; Nanjo, F.; Tachibana, H. Green tea catechin metabolites exert immunoregulatory effects on CD4+ T cell and natural killer cell activities. J. Agr. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 3591–3597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Leung, F.P.; Yung, L.M.; Ngai, C.Y.; Cheang, W.S.; Tian, X.Y.; Lau, C.W.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, J.; Chen, Z.Y.; Bian, Z.X.; et al. Chronic black tea extract consumption improves endothelial function in ovariectomized rats. Eur. J. Nutr. 2016, 55, 1963–1972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, K.; Zhou, R.; Wang, B.; Chen, K.; Shi, L.Y.; Zhu, T.D.; Mi, M.T. Effect of green tea on glucose control and insulin sensitivity: A meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2013, 98, 340–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nam, M.; Choi, M.S.; Choi, J.Y.; Kim, N.; Kim, M.S.; Jung, S.; Kim, J.; Ryu, D.H.; Hwang, G.S. Effect of green tea on hepatic lipid metabolism in mice fed a high-fat diet. J. Nutr. Biochem. 2018, 51, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scoparo, C.T.; de Souza, L.M.; Rattmann, Y.D.; Kiatkoski, E.C.; Dartora, N.; Iacomini, M. The protective effect of green and black teas (Camellia sinensis) and their identified compounds against murine sepsis. Food Res. Int. 2016, 83, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torello, C.O.; Shiraishi, R.N.; Della Via, F.I.; de Castro, T.; Longhini, A.L.; Santos, I.; Bombeiro, A.L.; Silva, C.; Queiroz, M.; Rego, E.M.; et al. Reactive oxygen species production triggers green tea-induced anti-leukaemic effects on acute promyelocytic leukaemia model. Cancer Lett. 2018, 414, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bi, W.; He, C.N.; Ma, Y.Y.; Shen, J.; Zhang, L.H.; Peng, Y.; Xiao, P.G. Investigation of free amino acid, total phenolics, antioxidant activity and purine alkaloids to assess the health properties of non-Camellia tea. ACTA Pharm. Sin. B 2016, 6, 170–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pan, H.B.; Wang, F.; Rankin, G.O.; Rojanasakul, Y.; Tu, Y.Y.; Chen, Y.C. Inhibitory effect of black tea pigments, theaflavin-3/3′-gallate against cisplatin-resistant ovarian cancer cells by inducing apoptosis and G1 cell cycle arrest. Int. J. Oncol. 2017, 51, 1508–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, L.J.; Warren, F.J.; Gidley, M.J. Soluble polysaccharides reduce binding and inhibitory activity of tea polyphenols against porcine pancreatic α-amylase. Food Hydrocolloid. 2018, 79, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tao, L.; Park, J.Y.; Lambert, J.D. Differential prooxidative effects of the green tea polyphenol, (−)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate, in normal and oral cancer cells are related to differences in sirtuin 3 signaling. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2015, 59, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, B.; Tu, Y.; Zhao, S.P.; Hao, Y.H.; Liu, J.X.; Liu, F.H.; Xiong, B.H.; Jiang, L.S. Effect of tea saponins on milk performance, milk fatty acids, and immune function in dairy cow. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 8043–8052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Li, L.; Chen, C.Y.O.; Chun, H.; Cho, S.; Park, K.; Lee-Kim, Y.C.; Blumberg, J.B.; Russell, R.M.; Yeum, K. A fluorometric assay to determine antioxidant activity of both hydrophilic and lipophilic components in plant foods. J. Nutr. Biochem. 2009, 20, 219–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nardini, M.; Cirillo, E.; Natella, F.; Mencarelli, D.; Comisso, A.; Scaccini, C. Detection of bound phenolic acids: Prevention by ascorbic acid and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid of degradation of phenolic acids during alkaline hydrolysis. Food Chem. 2002, 79, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, G.Y.; Zhao, C.N.; Liu, Q.; Feng, X.L.; Xu, X.Y.; Cao, S.Y.; Meng, X.; Li, S.; Gan, R.Y.; Li, H.B. Potential of grape wastes as a natural source of bioactive compounds. Molecules 2018, 23, 2598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Benzie, I.F.F.; Strain, J.J. The ferric reducing ability of plasma (FRAP) as a measure of “Antioxidant power”: The FRAP assay. Anal. Biochem. 1996, 239, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Re, R.; Pellegrini, N.; Proteggente, A.; Pannala, A.; Yang, M.; Rice-Evans, C. Antioxidant activity applying an improved ABTS radical cation decolorization assay. Free Radi. Biol. Med. 1999, 26, 1231–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singleton, V.L.; Orthofer, R.; Lamuela-Raventos, R.M. Analysis of total phenols and other oxidation substrates and antioxidants by means of Folin–Ciocalteu reagent. In Oxidants and Antioxidants; Packer, L., Ed.; Elsevier Academic Press Inc.: San Diego, CA, USA, 1999; Volume 299, pp. 152–178. [Google Scholar]
- Cai, Y.Z.; Luo, Q.; Sun, M.; Corke, H. Antioxidant activity and phenolic compounds of 112 traditional Chinese medicinal plants associated with anticancer. Life Sci. 2004, 74, 2157–2184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Deng, G.F.; Lin, X.; Xu, X.R.; Gao, L.L.; Xie, J.F.; Li, H.B. Antioxidant capacities and total phenolic contents of 56 vegetables. J. Funct. Foods. 2013, 5, 260–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, L.; Xu, B.T.; Xu, X.R.; Gan, R.Y.; Zhang, Y.; Xia, E.Q.; Li, H.B. Antioxidant capacities and total phenolic contents of 62 fruits. Food Chem. 2011, 129, 345–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gan, R.Y.; Li, H.B.; Gunaratne, A.; Sui, Z.Q.; Corke, H. Effects of fermented edible seeds and their products on human health: Bioactive components and bioactivities. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2017, 16, 489–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Li, S.K.; Gan, R.Y.; Song, F.L.; Kuang, L.; Li, H.B. Antioxidant capacities and total phenolic contents of infusions from 223 medicinal plants. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2013, 51, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, X.; Li, Y.; Li, S.; Gan, R.Y.; Li, H.B. Natural products for prevention and treatment of chemical-induced liver injuries. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2018, 17, 472–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, G.Y.; Meng, X.; Li, Y.; Zhao, C.N.; Liu, Q.; Li, H.B. Effects of vegetables on cardiovascular diseases and related mechanisms. Nutrients 2017, 9, 857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, C.N.; Meng, X.; Li, Y.; Li, S.; Liu, Q.; Tang, G.Y.; Li, H.B. Fruits for prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Nutrients 2017, 9, 598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nilsson, J.; Pillai, D.; Onning, G.; Persson, C.; Nilsson, A.; Akesson, B. Comparison of the 2,2′-azinobis-3-ethylbenzotiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS) and ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) methods to asses the total antioxidant capacity in extracts of fruit and vegetables. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2005, 49, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raudonis, R.; Raudone, L.; Jakstas, V.; Janulis, V. Comparative evaluation of post-column free radical scavenging and ferric reducing antioxidant power assays for screening of antioxidants in strawberries. J. Chromatogr. A. 2012, 1233, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pastoriza, S.; Perez-Burillo, S.; Rufian-Henares, J.A. How brewing parameters affect the healthy profile of tea. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2017, 14, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayes, W.A.; Mills, D.S.; Neville, R.F.; Kiddie, J.; Collins, L.M. Determination of the molar extinction coefficient for the ferric reducing/antioxidant power assay. Anal. Biochem. 2011, 416, 202–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pohanka, M.; Bandouchova, H.; Sobotka, J.; Sedlackova, J.; Soukupova, I.; Pikula, J. Ferric reducing antioxidant power and square wave voltammetry for assay of low molecular weight antioxidants in blood plasma: Performance and comparison of methods. Sensors 2009, 9, 9094–9103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van den Berg, R.; Haenen, G.; van den Berg, H.; van der Vijgh, W.; Bast, A. The predictive value of the antioxidant capacity of structurally related flavonoids using the Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC) assay. Food Chem. 2000, 70, 391–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, G.F.; Shen, C.; Xu, X.R.; Kuang, R.D.; Guo, Y.J.; Zeng, L.S.; Gao, L.L.; Lin, X.; Xie, J.F.; Xia, E.Q.; et al. Potential of fruit wastes as natural resources of bioactive compounds. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13, 8308–8323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fu, L.; Xu, B.T.; Xu, X.R.; Qin, X.S.; Gan, R.Y.; Li, H.B. Antioxidant capacities and total phenolic contents of 56 wild fruits from South China. Molecules 2010, 15, 8602–8617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guo, Y.J.; Deng, G.F.; Xu, X.R.; Wu, S.; Li, S.; Xia, E.Q.; Li, F.; Chen, F.; Ling, W.H.; Li, H.B. Antioxidant capacities, phenolic compounds and polysaccharide contents of 49 edible macro-fungi. Food Funct. 2012, 3, 1195–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, A.N.; Li, S.; Li, H.B.; Xu, D.P.; Xu, X.R.; Chen, F. Total phenolic contents and antioxidant capacities of 51 edible and wild flowers. J. Funct. Foods. 2014, 6, 319–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Q.; Tang, G.Y.; Zhao, C.N.; Feng, X.L.; Xu, X.Y.; Cao, S.Y.; Meng, X.; Li, S.; Gan, R.Y.; Li, H.B. Comparison of antioxidant activities of different grape varieties. Molecules 2018, 23, 2432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Li, S.; Meng, X.; Gan, R.Y.; Zhang, J.J.; Li, H.B. Dietary natural products for prevention and treatment of breast cancer. Nutrients 2017, 9, 728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, D.P.; Li, Y.; Meng, X.; Zhou, T.; Zhou, Y.; Zheng, J.; Zhang, J.J.; Li, H.B. Natural antioxidants in foods and medicinal plants: Extraction, assessment and resources. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zheng, J.; Zhou, Y.; Li, S.; Zhang, P.; Zhou, T.; Xu, D.P.; Li, H.B. Effects and mechanisms of fruit and vegetable juices on cardiovascular diseases. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bartikova, H.; Skalova, L.; Valentova, K.; Matouskova, P.; Szotakova, B.; Martin, J.; Kvita, V.; Bousova, I. Effect of oral administration of green tea extract in various dosage schemes on oxidative stress status of mice in vivo. Acta Pharm. 2015, 65, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chu, K.O.; Chan, K.P.; Yang, Y.P.; Qin, Y.J.; Li, W.Y.; Chan, S.O.; Wang, C.C.; Pang, C.P. Effects of EGCG content in green tea extract on pharmacokinetics, oxidative status and expression of inflammatory and apoptotic genes in the rat ocular tissues. J. Nutr. Biochem. 2015, 26, 1357–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cyboran, S.; Strugala, P.; Wloch, A.; Oszmianski, J.; Kleszczynska, H. Concentrated green tea supplement: Biological activity and molecular mechanisms. Life Sci. 2015, 126, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fei, T.Y.; Fei, J.; Huang, F.; Xie, T.P.; Xu, J.F.; Zhou, Y.; Yang, P. The anti-aging and anti-oxidation effects of tea water extract in Caenorhabditis elegans. Exp. Gerontol. 2017, 97, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, S.M.; Huang, H.H. Assessments of antioxidant effect of black tea extract and its rationals by erythrocyte haemolysis assay, plasma oxidation assay and cellular antioxidant activity (CAA) assay. J. Funct. Foods. 2015, 18, 1095–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peluso, I.; Manafikhi, H.; Raguzzini, A.; Longhitano, Y.; Reggi, R.; Zanza, C.; Palmery, M. The peroxidation of leukocytes index ratio reveals the prooxidant effect of green tea extract. Oxid. Med. Cell. Longev. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, H.; Li, X.C.; Ren, Z.X.; Qiu, W.M.; Chen, J.L.; Jiang, Q.; Chen, B.; Chen, D.F. Antioxidant and cytoprotective effects of Tibetan tea and its phenolic components. Molecules 2018, 23, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, L.; Luo, L.Y.; Li, H.J.; Liu, R.H. Phytochemical profiles and antioxidant activity of 27 cultivars of tea. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 68, 525–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adami, G.R.; Tangney, C.C.; Tang, J.L.; Zhou, Y.; Ghaffari, S.; Naqib, A.; Sinha, S.; Green, S.J.; Schwartz, J.L. Effects of green tea on miRNA and microbiome of oral epithelium. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 5873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garcia, M.L.; Pontes, R.B.; Nishi, E.E.; Ibuki, F.K.; Oliveira, V.; Sawaya, A.; Carvalho, P.O.; Nogueira, F.N.; Franco, M.D.; Campos, R.R.; et al. The antioxidant effects of green tea reduces blood pressure and sympathoexcitation in an experimental model of hypertension. J. Hypertens. 2017, 35, 348–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reddyvari, H.; Govatati, S.; Matha, S.K.; Korla, S.V.; Malempati, S.; Pasupuleti, S.R.; Bhanoori, M.; Nallanchakravarthula, V. Therapeutic effect of green tea extract on alcohol induced hepatic mitochondrial DNA damage in albino wistar rats. J. Adv. Res. 2017, 8, 289–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schimidt, H.L.; Garcia, A.; Martins, A.; Mello-Carpes, P.B.; Carpes, F.P. Green tea supplementation produces better neuroprotective effects than red and black tea in Alzheimer-like rat model. Food Res. Int. 2017, 100, 442–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xie, X.; Yi, W.J.; Zhang, P.W.; Wu, N.N.; Yan, Q.Q.; Yang, H.; Tian, C.; Xiang, S.Y.; Du, M.Y.; Assefa, E.G.; et al. Green tea polyphenols, mimicking the effects of dietary restriction, ameliorate high-fat diet-induced kidney injury via regulating autophagy flux. Nutrients 2017, 9, 497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gupta, S.; Chaudhuri, T.; Seth, P.; Ganguly, D.K.; Giri, A.K. Antimutagenic effects of black tea (world blend) and its two active polyphenols theaflavins and thearubigins in Salmonella assays. Phytother. Res. 2002, 16, 655–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira-Caro, G.; Moreno-Rojas, J.M.; Brindani, N.; Del Rio, D.; Lean, M.; Hara, Y.; Crozier, A. Bioavailability of black tea theaflavins: Absorption, metabolism, and colonic catabolism. J. Agr. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 5365–5374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.P.; Belscak-Cvitanovic, A.; Durgo, K.; Chisti, Y.; Gong, J.S.; Sirisansaneeyakul, S.; Komes, D. Physicochemical properties and biological activities of a high-theabrownins instant Pu-erh tea produced using Aspergillus tubingensis. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 90, 598–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baptista, J.; Lima, E.; Paiva, L.; Andrade, A.L.; Alves, M.G. Comparison of Azorean tea theanine to teas from other origins by HPLC/DAD/FD. Effect of fermentation, drying temperature, drying time and shoot maturity. Food Chem. 2012, 132, 2181–2187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jayabalan, R.; Malbasa, R.V.; Loncar, E.S.; Vitas, J.S.; Sathishkumar, M. A review on Kombucha tea microbiology, composition, fermentation, beneficial effects, toxicity, and tea fungus. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2014, 13, 538–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, D.Y.; Shah, N.P. Concomitant ingestion of lactic acid bacteria and black tea synergistically enhances flavonoid bioavailability and attenuates D-galactose-induced oxidative stress in mice via modulating glutathione antioxidant system. J. Nutr. Biochem. 2016, 38, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jochmann, N.; Lorenz, M.; von Krosigk, A.; Martus, P.; Bohm, V.; Baumann, G.; Stangl, K.; Stangl, V. The efficacy of black tea in ameliorating endothelial function is equivalent to that of green tea. Brit. J. Nutr. 2008, 99, 863–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1.
Correlations among FRAP and TPC values (A), TEAC and TPC values (B), FRAP and TEAC values (C). Abbreviations: FRAP, ferric-reducing antioxidant power; TEAC, Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity; TPC, total phenolic content.
Figure 1.
Correlations among FRAP and TPC values (A), TEAC and TPC values (B), FRAP and TEAC values (C). Abbreviations: FRAP, ferric-reducing antioxidant power; TEAC, Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity; TPC, total phenolic content.
Figure 2.
Dendrogram using average linkage (between groups) from systematic cluster analysis for 30 Chinese teas. B, black tea; D, dark tea; G, green tea; O, oolong tea; W, white tea; Y, yellow tea.
Figure 2.
Dendrogram using average linkage (between groups) from systematic cluster analysis for 30 Chinese teas. B, black tea; D, dark tea; G, green tea; O, oolong tea; W, white tea; Y, yellow tea.
Figure 3.
High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) Chromatograms under 254 nm of the standard compounds (A); Dianqing Tea (B); Tibetan Tea (C). The numbers in brackets referred to the compounds: gallic acid (1); gallocatechin (2); epigallocatechin (3); catechin (4); chlorogenic acid (5); caffeine (6); epigallocatechin gallate (7); epicatechin (8); gallocatechin gallate (9); epicatechin gallate (10); catechin gallate (11); ellagic acid (12); myricetin (13); quercitrin (14); kaempferol-3-O-glucoside (15); quercetin (16); theaflavine (17); kaempferol (18).
Figure 3.
High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) Chromatograms under 254 nm of the standard compounds (A); Dianqing Tea (B); Tibetan Tea (C). The numbers in brackets referred to the compounds: gallic acid (1); gallocatechin (2); epigallocatechin (3); catechin (4); chlorogenic acid (5); caffeine (6); epigallocatechin gallate (7); epicatechin (8); gallocatechin gallate (9); epicatechin gallate (10); catechin gallate (11); ellagic acid (12); myricetin (13); quercitrin (14); kaempferol-3-O-glucoside (15); quercetin (16); theaflavine (17); kaempferol (18).
Figure 4.
Correlations between FRAP and catechins (A), TEAC and catechins (B), FRAP and noncatechin polyphenols (C) and TEAC and noncatechin polyphenols (D). Abbreviations: FRAP, ferric-reducing antioxidant power; TEAC, Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity.
Figure 4.
Correlations between FRAP and catechins (A), TEAC and catechins (B), FRAP and noncatechin polyphenols (C) and TEAC and noncatechin polyphenols (D). Abbreviations: FRAP, ferric-reducing antioxidant power; TEAC, Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity.
Table 1.
Basic information about the 30 Chinese teas.
| No. | Name | Category | Fermentation Degree | Production Place |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dianhong Congou Black Tea | Black tea | Deep-fermented | Kunming, Yunnan |
| 2 | Keemun Black Tea | Black tea | Deep-fermented | Qimen, Anhui |
| 3 | Lapsang Souchong Black Tea | Black tea | Deep-fermented | Wuyishan, Fujian |
| 4 | Yichang Congou Black Tea | Black tea | Deep-fermented | Yichang, Hubei |
| 5 | Fuzhuan Brick Tea | Dark tea | Post-fermented | Anhua, Hubei |
| 6 | Liupao Tea | Dark tea | Post-fermented | Wuzhou, Guangxi |
| 7 | Pu-erh Tea | Dark tea | Post-fermented | Pu’er, Yunnan |
| 8 | Qingzhuan Brick tea | Dark tea | Post-fermented | Chibi, Hubei |
| 9 | Tibetan Tea | Dark tea | Post-fermented | Ya’an, Sichuan |
| 10 | Dianqing Tea | Green tea | Unfermented | Kunming, Yunnan |
| 11 | Dongting Biluochun Tea | Green tea | Unfermented | Suzhou, Jiangsu |
| 12 | Duyun Maojian Tea | Green tea | Unfermented | Duyun, Guizhou |
| 13 | Enshi Yulu Tea | Green tea | Unfermented | Enshi, Hubei |
| 14 | Lu’an Guapian Tea | Green tea | Unfermented | Lu’an, Anhui |
| 15 | Lushan Yunwu Tea | Green tea | Unfermented | Jiujiang, Jiangxi |
| 16 | Taiping Houkui Tea | Green tea | Unfermented | Huangshan, Anhui |
| 17 | Xihu Longjing Tea | Green tea | Unfermented | Hangzhou, Zhejiang |
| 18 | Yongxi Huoqing Tea | Green tea | Unfermented | Jingxian, Anhui |
| 19 | Fenghuang Shuixian Tea | Oolong tea | Semi-fermented | Chao’an, Guangdong |
| 20 | Luohan Chenxiang Tea | Oolong tea | Semi-fermented | Mengdingshan, Sichuan |
| 21 | Tieguanyin Tea | Oolong tea | Semi-fermented | Anxi, Fujian |
| 22 | Wuyi Rock Tea | Oolong tea | Semi-fermented | Wuyishan, Fujian |
| 23 | Gongmei White Tea | White tea | Mild-fermented | Nanping, Fujian |
| 24 | Shoumei White Tea | White tea | Mild-fermented | Nanping, Fujian |
| 25 | White Peony Tea | White tea | Mild-fermented | Nanping, Fujian |
| 26 | Huoshan Large Yellow Tea | Yellow tea | Light-fermented | Lu’an, Anhui |
| 27 | Junshan Yinzhen Tea | Yellow tea | Light-fermented | Yueyang, Hunan |
| 28 | Mengding Huangya Tea | Yellow tea | Light-fermented | Mengdingshan, Sichuan |
| 29 | Weishan Maojian Tea | Yellow tea | Light-fermented | Ningxiang, Hunan |
| 30 | Yuan’an Luyuan Tea | Yellow tea | Light-fermented | Yichang, Hubei |
Table 2.
Ferric-reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) values of the 30 common Chinese teas.
| No. | Name | Category | FRAP Value (μmol Fe(II)/g DW) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fat-Soluble Fraction | Water-Soluble Fraction | Bound-Insoluble Fraction | Total | Mean ± SD of Categories | |||
| 1 | Dianhong Congou Black Tea | Black tea | 11.53 ± 0.27 | 1142.49 ± 5.55 | 115.29 ± 0.54 | 1269.31 ± 5.88 | 1141.58 ± 13.92 a |
| 2 | Keemun Black Tea | Black tea | 5.20 ± 0.17 | 1034.93 ± 36.25 | 88.41 ± 1.93 | 1128.53 ± 34.52 | |
| 3 | Lapsang Souchong Black Tea | Black tea | 15.53 ± 0.58 | 585.60 ± 7.42 | 78.32 ± 2.79 | 679.45 ± 8.29 | |
| 4 | Yichang Congou Black Tea | Black tea | 4.56 ± 0.43 | 1371.38 ± 5.05 | 113.07 ± 1.53 | 1489.01 ± 6.98 | |
| 5 | Fuzhuan Brick Tea | Dark tea | 65.53 ± 1.89 | 2318.76 ± 77.12 | 100.66 ± 3.01 | 2484.94 ± 80.20 | 1124.96 ± 23.87 a |
| 6 | Liupao Tea | Dark tea | 5.01 ± 0.29 | 922.49 ± 12.03 | 62.13 ± 0.70 | 989.62 ± 11.40 | |
| 7 | Pu-erh Tea | Dark tea | 5.10 ± 0.11 | 725.60 ± 18.04 | 72.77 ± 1.16 | 803.46 ± 16.99 | |
| 8 | Qingzhuan Brick tea | Dark tea | 38.20 ± 0.73 | 648.71 ± 6.16 | 48.68 ± 0.96 | 735.59 ± 5.64 | |
| 9 | Tibetan Tea | Dark tea | 31.31 ± 0.69 | 534.04 ± 4.68 | 45.82 ± 0.59 | 611.18 ± 5.09 | |
| 10 | Dianqing Tea | Green tea | 250.73 ± 8.97 | 4937.24 ± 236.20 | 187.20 ± 0.88 | 5375.18 ± 228.43 | 3621.75 ± 81.44 b |
| 11 | Dongting Biluochun Tea | Green tea | 230.51 ± 10.31 | 3515.73 ± 37.33 | 98.96 ± 1.56 | 3845.21 ± 44.17 | |
| 12 | Duyun Maojian Tea | Green tea | 71.31 ± 1.58 | 3442.84 ± 50.69 | 150.81 ± 4.30 | 3664.97 ± 53.33 | |
| 13 | Enshi Yulu Tea | Green tea | 44.26 ± 1.55 | 3037.51 ± 13.42 | 179.64 ± 2.28 | 3261.41 ± 14.50 | |
| 14 | Lu’an Guapian Tea | Green tea | 67.92 ± 1.01 | 1413.60 ± 43.90 | 131.76 ± 3.17 | 1613.28 ± 43.98 | |
| 15 | Lushan Yunwu Tea | Green tea | 93.42 ± 2.68 | 3396.62 ± 83.02 | 128.98 ± 3.08 | 3619.02 ± 83.57 | |
| 16 | Taiping Houkui Tea | Green tea | 139.26 ± 4.23 | 3272.18 ± 117.50 | 126.42 ± 2.34 | 3537.86 ± 112.24 | |
| 17 | Xihu Longjing Tea | Green tea | 196.62 ± 4.99 | 3650.84 ± 53.42 | 78.85 ± 5.71 | 3926.32 ± 56.00 | |
| 18 | Yongxi Huoqing Tea | Green tea | 90.20 ± 1.69 | 3512.18 ± 96.79 | 150.14 ± 1.39 | 3752.52 ± 96.75 | |
| 19 | Fenghuang Shuixian Tea | Oolong tea | 43.40 ± 4.37 | 2069.87 ± 55.49 | 144.26 ± 1.51 | 2257.52 ± 50.42 | 2013.37 ± 26.17 a |
| 20 | Luohan Chenxiang Tea | Oolong tea | 26.03 ± 0.29 | 1827.20 ± 12.22 | 79.77 ± 0.30 | 1933.00 ± 12.52 | |
| 21 | Tieguanyin Tea | Oolong tea | 84.73 ± 5.69 | 1911.64 ± 10.10 | 59.82 ± 0.39 | 2056.20 ± 4.96 | |
| 22 | Wuyi Rock Tea | Oolong tea | 20.62 ± 1.40 | 1696.53 ± 34.87 | 89.60 ± 1.81 | 1806.75 ± 36.77 | |
| 23 | Gongmei White Tea | White tea | 31.03 ± 1.69 | 1149.16 ± 16.67 | 81.63 ± 1.86 | 1261.82 ± 18.31 | 1093.64 ± 16.82 a |
| 24 | Shoumei White Tea | White tea | 28.09 ± 1.25 | 934.49 ± 28.98 | 82.85 ± 1.39 | 1045.43 ± 29.22 | |
| 25 | White Peony Tea | White tea | 32.37 ± 0.76 | 849.16 ± 2.04 | 92.16 ± 1.47 | 973.68 ± 2.92 | |
| 26 | Huoshan Large Yellow Tea | Yellow tea | 77.64 ± 2.28 | 2539.20 ± 14.11 | 89.24 ± 0.50 | 2706.08 ± 15.16 | 3182.34 ± 31.31 b |
| 27 | Junshan Yinzhen Tea | Yellow tea | 144.81 ± 3.73 | 3137.42 ± 26.71 | 84.27 ± 1.97 | 3366.50 ± 21.49 | |
| 28 | Mengding Huangya Tea | Yellow tea | 112.03 ± 5.95 | 3173.87 ± 16.22 | 68.02 ± 1.80 | 3353.92 ± 10.48 | |
| 29 | Weishan Maojian Tea | Yellow tea | 82.53 ± 4.64 | 2862.76 ± 80.24 | 98.46 ± 1.17 | 3043.75 ± 78.43 | |
| 30 | Yuan’an Luyuan Tea | Yellow tea | 93.31 ± 3.08 | 3254.40 ± 29.70 | 93.74 ± 0.19 | 3441.45 ± 30.99 | |
Abbreviations: FRAP, ferric-reducing antioxidant power; DW, dry weight; SD, standard deviation. Different superscript lowercase letters (a,b) indicated statistical significance (p < 0.05).
Table 3.
Comparison among FRAP, TEAC, and TPC of different tea fractions.
| Index | Fraction | Statistical Description | p Value by Non-Parametric Test | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIN | QL | M | QU | MAX | Item | M-W | Moses | K-S | W-W | ||
| FRAP | 1 | 4.56 | 24.68 | 54.89 | 93.34 | 250.73 | a | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| 2 | 534.04 | 1009.82 | 1990.76 | 3258.84 | 4937.24 | b | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| 3 | 45.82 | 78.72 | 90.88 | 127.06 | 187.20 | c | =0.003 | =1.000 | =0.001 | =0.025 | |
| TEAC | 1 | 9.25 | 24.17 | 45.53 | 66.21 | 137.97 | a | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| 2 | 277.41 | 568.63 | 1295.08 | 1881.65 | 2754.98 | b | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| 3 | 34.34 | 51.52 | 61.42 | 77.67 | 111.45 | c | =0.005 | =1.000 | =0.016 | 0.181 | |
| TPC | 1 | 1.56 | 3.47 | 4.75 | 6.50 | 11.26 | a | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| 2 | 32.26 | 81.37 | 149.58 | 190.77 | 236.50 | b | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| 3 | 3.08 | 5.36 | 6.43 | 8.45 | 11.04 | c | =0.006 | =1.000 | =0.016 | =0.347 | |
Note: 1, fat-soluble fraction; 2, water-soluble fraction; 3, bound-insoluble fraction; a, non-parametric test between 1 and 2; b, non-parametric test between 2 and 3; c, non-parametric test between 1 and 3; FRAP, ferric-reducing antioxidant power; K-S, Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test; M, median; MAX, the maximum value; MIN, the minimum value; Moses, Moses Test; M-W, Mann-Whitney test; QL, the lower quartile; QU, the upper quartile; TEAC, Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity; TPC, total phenolic content; W-W, Wald-Wolfowitz Test.
Table 4.
Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC) values of the 30 common Chinese teas.
| No. | Name | Category | TEAC Value (μmol Trolox/g DW) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fat-Soluble Fraction | Water-Soluble Fraction | Bound-Insoluble Fraction | Total | Mean ± SD of Categories | |||
| 1 | Dianhong Congou Black Tea | Black tea | 44.84 ± 1.38 | 627.92 ± 6.80 | 78.68 ± 1.19 | 751.44 ± 7.20 | 724.28 ± 12.63 a |
| 2 | Keemun Black Tea | Black tea | 26.43 ± 0.70 | 570.24 ± 17.10 | 64.24 ± 1.54 | 660.91 ± 15.26 | |
| 3 | Lapsang Souchong Black Tea | Black tea | 53.14 ± 2.44 | 355.48 ± 8.80 | 56.04 ± 1.92 | 464.67 ± 8.89 | |
| 4 | Yichang Congou Black Tea | Black tea | 24.12 ± 0.77 | 918.66 ± 18.82 | 77.34 ± 1.26 | 1020.11 ± 19.17 | |
| 5 | Fuzhuan Brick Tea | Dark tea | 40.58 ± 0.66 | 1172.97 ± 21.52 | 66.19 ± 1.19 | 1279.74 ± 21.17 | 589.43 ± 8.35 a |
| 6 | Liupao Tea | Dark tea | 22.90 ± 1.29 | 460.32 ± 9.97 | 48.23 ± 1.04 | 531.45 ± 9.97 | |
| 7 | Pu-erh Tea | Dark tea | 19.45 ± 1.11 | 338.44 ± 5.76 | 48.13 ± 1.11 | 406.02 ± 6.98 | |
| 8 | Qingzhuan Brick tea | Dark tea | 17.85 ± 1.19 | 351.43 ± 3.59 | 34.34 ± 0.28 | 403.62 ± 3.15 | |
| 9 | Tibetan Tea | Dark tea | 9.25 ± 0.40 | 277.41 ± 0.00 | 39.66 ± 0.45 | 326.32 ± 0.48 | |
| 10 | Dianqing Tea | Green tea | 137.97 ± 3.13 | 2754.98 ± 113.83 | 111.45 ± 2.50 | 3004.40 ± 112.89 | 1964.50 ± 38.29 b |
| 11 | Dongting Biluochun Tea | Green tea | 127.03 ± 3.43 | 1883.90 ± 11.31 | 64.02 ± 0.88 | 2074.94 ± 9.06 | |
| 12 | Duyun Maojian Tea | Green tea | 41.05 ± 1.48 | 1853.93 ± 27.46 | 102.89 ± 1.82 | 1997.86 ± 25.04 | |
| 13 | Enshi Yulu Tea | Green tea | 29.42 ± 0.49 | 1639.68 ± 27.34 | 109.31 ± 4.09 | 1778.42 ± 30.71 | |
| 14 | Lu’an Guapian Tea | Green tea | 42.57 ± 0.31 | 635.75 ± 11.53 | 75.13 ± 0.34 | 753.45 ± 11.73 | |
| 15 | Lushan Yunwu Tea | Green tea | 47.95 ± 0.54 | 1820.97 ± 44.12 | 79.77 ± 1.11 | 1948.69 ± 45.05 | |
| 16 | Taiping Houkui Tea | Green tea | 74.28 ± 0.43 | 1808.98 ± 26.34 | 77.21 ± 0.77 | 1960.47 ± 26.50 | |
| 17 | Xihu Longjing Tea | Green tea | 117.50 ± 4.53 | 1955.81 ± 40.78 | 52.61 ± 0.44 | 2125.92 ± 44.43 | |
| 18 | Yongxi Huoqing Tea | Green tea | 48.85 ± 1.35 | 1880.90 ± 38.23 | 106.61 ± 2.24 | 2036.36 ± 39.18 | |
| 19 | Fenghuang Shuixian Tea | Oolong tea | 38.72 ± 2.22 | 1541.83 ± 16.35 | 80.07 ± 0.70 | 1660.62 ± 18.36 | 1460.46 ± 22.23 b |
| 20 | Luohan Chenxiang Tea | Oolong tea | 73.86 ± 2.98 | 1376.32 ± 22.44 | 47.53 ± 4.07 | 1497.72 ± 23.35 | |
| 21 | Tieguanyin Tea | Oolong tea | 61.30 ± 1.59 | 1311.56 ± 35.34 | 40.75 ± 1.41 | 1413.61 ± 33.12 | |
| 22 | Wuyi Rock Tea | Oolong tea | 66.52 ± 2.19 | 1141.73 ± 17.45 | 61.64 ± 1.19 | 1269.89 ± 14.09 | |
| 23 | Gongmei White Tea | White tea | 21.85 ± 0.50 | 628.51 ± 21.09 | 57.27 ± 0.21 | 707.63 ± 20.78 | 629.61 ± 10.92 a |
| 24 | Shoumei White Tea | White tea | 20.03 ± 1.33 | 563.80 ± 7.43 | 57.18 ± 1.13 | 641.01 ± 7.33 | |
| 25 | White Peony Tea | White tea | 24.18 ± 0.23 | 452.93 ± 4.48 | 63.08 ± 0.65 | 540.19 ± 4.64 | |
| 26 | Huoshan Large Yellow Tea | Yellow tea | 46.21 ± 1.06 | 1278.60 ± 27.90 | 54.92 ± 2.72 | 1379.72 ± 29.46 | 2087.81 ± 42.89 b |
| 27 | Junshan Yinzhen Tea | Yellow tea | 80.05 ± 0.63 | 2278.99 ± 27.87 | 59.67 ± 1.68 | 2418.71 ± 26.70 | |
| 28 | Mengding Huangya Tea | Yellow tea | 66.10 ± 1.29 | 2192.70 ± 53.25 | 44.92 ± 1.04 | 2303.72 ± 53.67 | |
| 29 | Weishan Maojian Tea | Yellow tea | 50.07 ± 1.43 | 2139.15 ± 38.99 | 61.19 ± 2.41 | 2250.40 ± 37.95 | |
| 30 | Yuan’an Luyuan Tea | Yellow tea | 56.30 ± 0.50 | 1971.03 ± 64.83 | 59.16 ± 1.42 | 2086.49 ± 66.69 | |
Abbreviations: DW, dry weight; SD, standard deviation; TEAC, Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity. Different superscript lowercase letters (a,b) indicated statistical significance (p < 0.05).
Table 5.
Total phenolic content (TPC) values of the 30 common Chinese teas.
| No. | Name | Category | TPC Value (mg GAE/g DW) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fat-Soluble Fraction | Water-Soluble Fraction | Bound-Insoluble Fraction | Total | Mean ± SD of Categories | |||
| 1 | Dianhong Congou Black Tea | Black tea | 6.43 ± 0.55 | 106.68 ± 1.26 | 8.86 ± 0.06 | 121.97 ± 1.31 | 107.54 ± 1.80 a |
| 2 | Keemun Black Tea | Black tea | 4.72 ± 0.08 | 96.26 ± 3.42 | 6.47 ± 0.03 | 107.44 ± 3.43 | |
| 3 | Lapsang Souchong Black Tea | Black tea | 2.31 ± 0.05 | 62.51 ± 1.65 | 6.29 ± 0.10 | 71.11 ± 1.63 | |
| 4 | Yichang Congou Black Tea | Black tea | 3.86 ± 0.23 | 117.54 ± 0.84 | 8.25 ± 0.01 | 129.64 ± 0.85 | |
| 5 | Fuzhuan Brick Tea | Dark tea | 4.21 ± 0.18 | 141.06 ± 3.39 | 6.89 ± 0.07 | 152.17 ± 3.57 | 78.16 ± 1.33 a |
| 6 | Liupao Tea | Dark tea | 4.31 ± 0.13 | 74.28 ± 1.38 | 5.74 ± 0.06 | 84.33 ± 1.37 | |
| 7 | Pu-erh Tea | Dark tea | 4.10 ± 0.10 | 59.52 ± 0.72 | 4.79 ± 0.05 | 68.40 ± 0.81 | |
| 8 | Qingzhuan Brick tea | Dark tea | 2.37 ± 0.06 | 42.95 ± 0.77 | 3.34 ± 0.05 | 48.66 ± 0.75 | |
| 9 | Tibetan Tea | Dark tea | 1.91 ± 0.07 | 32.26 ± 0.20 | 3.08 ± 0.12 | 37.25 ± 0.16 | |
| 10 | Dianqing Tea | Green tea | 7.23 ± 0.22 | 236.50 ± 15.52 | 10.56 ± 0.21 | 254.29 ± 15.51 | 195.79 ± 5.45 b |
| 11 | Dongting Biluochun Tea | Green tea | 6.66 ± 0.20 | 198.52 ± 2.45 | 6.02 ± 0.11 | 211.20 ± 2.52 | |
| 12 | Duyun Maojian Tea | Green tea | 4.12 ± 0.04 | 191.19 ± 2.53 | 9.71 ± 0.23 | 205.02 ±2.74 | |
| 13 | Enshi Yulu Tea | Green tea | 2.34 ± 0.16 | 162.53 ± 3.00 | 11.04 ± 0.87 | 175.91 ± 2.01 | |
| 14 | Lu’an Guapian Tea | Green tea | 4.03 ± 0.05 | 81.52 ± 2.34 | 8.41 ± 0.18 | 93.96 ± 2.47 | |
| 15 | Lushan Yunwu Tea | Green tea | 5.46 ± 0.11 | 186.77 ± 4.90 | 8.56 ± 0.19 | 200.80 ± 4.76 | |
| 16 | Taiping Houkui Tea | Green tea | 8.65 ± 0.06 | 179.88 ± 1.80 | 8.21 ± 0.18 | 196.74 ± 1.82 | |
| 17 | Xihu Longjing Tea | Green tea | 5.90 ± 0.29 | 204.88 ± 11.38 | 4.61 ± 0.20 | 215.39 ± 11.87 | |
| 18 | Yongxi Huoqing Tea | Green tea | 5.40 ± 0.02 | 193.67 ± 5.26 | 9.75 ± 0.11 | 208.83 ± 5.32 | |
| 19 | Fenghuang Shuixian Tea | Oolong tea | 3.84 ± 0.31 | 188.80 ± 2.08 | 8.73 ± 0.28 | 201.36 ± 1.74 | 172.11 ± 2.09 b |
| 20 | Luohan Chenxiang Tea | Oolong tea | 11.26 ± 0.54 | 150.49 ± 1.77 | 5.19 ± 0.10 | 166.94 ± 1.64 | |
| 21 | Tieguanyin Tea | Oolong tea | 6.44 ± 0.51 | 148.66 ± 1.82 | 3.81 ± 0.08 | 158.91 ± 2.17 | |
| 22 | Wuyi Rock Tea | Oolong tea | 10.67 ± 0.20 | 144.46 ± 2.89 | 6.10 ± 0.05 | 161.23 ± 2.83 | |
| 23 | Gongmei White Tea | White tea | 1.57 ± 0.04 | 90.11 ± 0.57 | 6.59 ± 0.37 | 98.28 ± 0.92 | 84.39 ± 0.79 a |
| 24 | Shoumei White Tea | White tea | 1.56 ± 0.08 | 80.90 ± 0.81 | 6.40 ± 0.07 | 88.87 ± 0.93 | |
| 25 | White Peony Tea | White tea | 1.73 ± 0.04 | 57.25 ± 0.45 | 7.06 ± 0.07 | 66.04 ± 0.51 | |
| 26 | Huoshan Large Yellow Tea | Yellow tea | 4.79 ± 0.17 | 156.15 ± 1.96 | 5.42 ± 0.10 | 166.35 ± 1.93 | 198.44 ± 5.39 b |
| 27 | Junshan Yinzhen Tea | Yellow tea | 9.35 ± 0.16 | 199.41 ± 3.27 | 5.97 ± 0.04 | 214.72 ± 3.22 | |
| 28 | Mengding Huangya Tea | Yellow tea | 6.82 ± 0.15 | 190.63 ± 3.98 | 4.22 ± 0.15 | 201.67 ± 3.82 | |
| 29 | Weishan Maojian Tea | Yellow tea | 4.83 ± 0.28 | 187.72 ± 10.14 | 6.87 ± 0.01 | 199.42 ± 10.13 | |
| 30 | Yuan’an Luyuan Tea | Yellow tea | 5.56 ± 0.10 | 198.52 ± 7.76 | 5.97 ± 0.08 | 210.05 ± 7.84 | |
Abbreviations: DW, dry weight; GAE, gallic acid equivalent; SD, standard deviation; TPC, total phenolic content. Different superscript lowercase letters (a,b) indicated statistical significance (p < 0.05).
Table 6.
Online Analytical Processing (OLAP) Cube based on systematic cluster analysis for 30 Chinese teas (cluster number = 4).
Table 6.
Online Analytical Processing (OLAP) Cube based on systematic cluster analysis for 30 Chinese teas (cluster number = 4).
| Average Linkage | FRAP | TEAC | TPC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | SUM | 12600.37 | 7206.81 | 1015.94 |
| N | 12 | 12 | 12 | |
| Mean | 1050.03 | 600.57 | 84.66 | |
| SD | 317.40 | 194.85 | 27.90 | |
| SUM/SUMT (%) | 18.0% | 17.3% | 22.5% | |
| N/NT (%) | 40.0% | 40.0% | 40.0% | |
| 2 | SUM | 13244.50 | 8501.30 | 1006.96 |
| N | 6 | 6 | 6 | |
| Mean | 2207.42 | 1416.88 | 167.83 | |
| SD | 342.61 | 146.80 | 17.30 | |
| SUM/SUMT (%) | 18.9% | 20.4% | 22.3% | |
| N/NT (%) | 20.0% | 20.0% | 20.0% | |
| 3 | SUM | 38812.92 | 2298200 | 2239.75 |
| N | 11 | 11 | 11 | |
| Mean | 3528.45 | 2089.27 | 203.61 | |
| SD | 265.76 | 180.60 | 11.11 | |
| SUM/SUMT (%) | 55.4% | 55.1% | 49.6% | |
| N/NT (%) | 36.7% | 36.7% | 36.7% | |
| 4 | SUM | 5375.18 | 3004.40 | 254.29 |
| N | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Mean | 5375.18 | 3004.40 | 254.29 | |
| SD | NA | NA | NA | |
| SUM/SUMT (%) | 7.7% | 7.2% | 5.6% | |
| N/NT (%) | 3.3% | 3.3% | 3.3% | |
| Total | SUM | 70032.96 | 41694.52 | 4516.94 |
| N | 30 | 30 | 30 | |
| Mean | 2334.43 | 1389.82 | 150.57 | |
| SD | 1276.08 | 750.16 | 60.72 | |
Abbreviations: FRAP, ferric-reducing antioxidant power; TEAC, Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity; TPC, total phenolic content.
Table 7.
The contents (mg/g DW) of catechins in 30 Chinese teas.
| No. | Name | Category | Catechin | Epicatechin | Gallocatechin | Epigallocatechin | Catechin Gallate | Epicatechin Gallate | Gallocatechin Gallate | Epigallocatechin Gallate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dianhong Congou Black Tea | Black Tea | - | 0.796 ± 0.047 | 1.098 ± 0.052 | 8.479 ± 0.500 | - | 2.583 ± 0.077 | - | 0.539 ± 0.013 |
| 2 | Keemun Black Tea | Black Tea | - | 0.477 ± 0.030 | - | - | - | 1.499 ± 0.033 | - | 2.164 ± 0.102 |
| 3 | Lapsang Souchong Black Tea | Black Tea | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.761 ± 0.031 |
| 4 | Yichang Congou Black Tea | Black Tea | - | 0.740 ± 0.033 | - | - | - | 3.511 ± 0.070 | 0.510 ± 0.013 | 3.795 ± 0.089 |
| 5 | Fuzhuan Brick Tea | Dark Tea | 4.930 ± 0.240 | 10.357 ± 0.268 | 5.535 ± 0.128 | 23.430 ± 0.375 | - | 10.881 ± 0.105 | 0.933 ± 0.063 | 10.885 ± 0.259 |
| 6 | Liupao Tea | Dark Tea | 1.667 ± 0.063 | 3.886 ± 0.112 | 2.120 ± 0.150 | 5.440 ± 0.171 | - | 0.455 ± 0.037 | - | 0.647 ± 0.015 |
| 7 | Pu-erh Tea | Dark Tea | - | 1.574 ± 0.086 | - | - | - | 0.515 ± 0.040 | - | 0.584 ± 0.044 |
| 8 | Qingzhuan Brick tea | Dark Tea | - | 0.977 ± 0.056 | 1.062 ± 0.049 | 5.200 ± 0.140 | - | 0.542 ± 0.015 | - | 1.479 ± 0.083 |
| 9 | Tibetan Tea | Dark Tea | - | - | - | 2.288 ± 0.050 | - | - | - | 0.886 ± 0.027 |
| 10 | Dianqing Tea | Green Tea | 1.315 ± 0.084 | 5.970 ± 0.210 | 1.864 ± 0.080 | 13.094 ± 0.256 | - | 35.395 ± 0.568 | - | 59.354 ± 1.131 |
| 11 | Dongting Biluochun Tea | Green Tea | 0.988 ± 0.039 | 6.310 ± 0.272 | 1.824 ± 0.051 | 24.522 ± 0.060 | - | 27.893 ± 0.426 | 0.630 ± 0.026 | 43.070 ± 0.209 |
| 12 | Duyun Maojian Tea | Green Tea | - | 8.700 ± 0.429 | 2.814 ± 0.167 | 42.063 ± 0.126 | - | 18.443 ± 0.537 | 1.137 ± 0.062 | 43.056 ± 0.455 |
| 13 | Enshi Yulu Tea | Green Tea | - | 6.443 ± 0.166 | 2.135 ± 0.140 | 29.070 ± 0.484 | - | 16.774 ± 0.090 | - | 33.102 ± 0.594 |
| 14 | Lu’an Guapian Tea | Green Tea | - | 7.352 ± 0.147 | 3.015 ± 0.121 | 100.684 ± 0.561 | - | 7.599 ± 0.119 | 0.842 ± 0.044 | 40.161 ± 0.887 |
| 15 | Lushan Yunwu Tea | Green Tea | - | 6.377 ± 0.150 | 3.277 ± 0.150 | 53.447 ± 0.326 | - | 15.130 ± 0.431 | - | 48.272 ± 0.363 |
| 16 | Taiping Houkui Tea | Green Tea | - | 8.580 ± 0.211 | 3.121 ± 0.092 | 74.212 ± 0.226 | - | 11.264 ± 0.097 | 0.640 ± 0.020 | 45.016 ± 0.222 |
| 17 | Xihu Longjing Tea | Green Tea | - | 5.380 ± 0.216 | 4.002 ± 0.112 | 24.494 ± 0.467 | 0.645 ± 0.036 | 22.364 ± 0.869 | 5.844 ± 0.173 | 51.734 ± 0.240 |
| 18 | Yongxi Huoqing Tea | Green Tea | - | 6.260 ± 0.303 | 2.630 ± 0.165 | 38.486 ± 0.994 | - | 18.064 ± 0.181 | 0.601 ± 0.019 | 50.947 ± 0.396 |
| 19 | Fenghuang Shuixian Tea | Oolong Tea | - | 1.579 ± 0.089 | 2.509 ± 0.121 | 31.253 ± 0.206 | - | 8.435 ± 0.270 | - | 36.704 ± 0.362 |
| 20 | Luohan Chenxiang Tea | Oolong Tea | - | 7.531 ± 0.017 | 8.088 ± 0.092 | 125.439 ± 0.678 | - | 3.683 ± 0.102 | - | 22.396 ± 0.505 |
| 21 | Tieguanyin Tea | Oolong Tea | 0.775 ± 0.052 | 13.723 ± 0.216 | 3.938 ± 0.146 | 139.854 ± 1.075 | - | 6.471 ± 0.235 | 0.562 ± 0.022 | 23.663 ± 0.308 |
| 22 | Wuyi Rock Tea | Oolong Tea | - | 4.337 ± 0.223 | 11.528 ± 0.079 | 36.826 ± 0.668 | 0.981 ± 0.121 | 5.083 ± 0.122 | 2.261 ± 0.111 | 20.211 ± 0.223 |
| 23 | Gongmei White Tea | White Tea | - | - | - | 8.419 ± 0.143 | - | 3.144 ± 0.123 | - | 6.010 ± 0.083 |
| 24 | Shoumei White Tea | White Tea | - | - | - | - | - | 2.270 ± 0.062 | - | 3.537 ± 0.072 |
| 25 | White Peony Tea | White Tea | - | 1.311 ± 0.033 | - | - | - | 3.841 ± 0.125 | - | 8.539 ± 0.169 |
| 26 | Huoshan Large Yellow Tea | Yellow Tea | 2.040 ± 0.054 | 2.956 ± 0.115 | 11.858 ± 0.039 | 14.340 ± 0.135 | 1.608 ± 0.026 | 5.549 ± 0.059 | 10.787 ± 0.108 | 17.209 ± 0.177 |
| 27 | Junshan Yinzhen Tea | Yellow Tea | 1.366 ± 0.043 | 6.196 ± 0.178 | 2.736 ± 0.102 | 13.661 ± 0.196 | 0.351 ± 0.014 | 30.491 ± 0.101 | 1.447 ± 0.066 | 50.777 ± 0.224 |
| 28 | Mengding Huangya Tea | Yellow Tea | - | 0.968 ± 0.056 | 4.844 ± 0.064 | 22.950 ± 0.102 | - | 23.805 ± 0.075 | 2.361 ± 0.128 | 39.125 ± 0.082 |
| 29 | Weishan Maojian Tea | Yellow Tea | - | 10.062 ± 0.040 | 2.818 ± 0.072 | 45.484 ± 0.057 | - | - | 24.710 ± 0.247 | 32.856 ± 0.060 |
| 30 | Yuan’an Luyuan Tea | Yellow Tea | - | 5.959 ± 0.147 | 3.918 ± 0.051 | 19.877 ± 0.176 | - | 21.373 ± 0.027 | 1.388 ± 0.043 | 57.230 ± 0.253 |
DW, dry weight, “-“ means not detected.
Table 8.
The contents (mg/g DW) of other main phytochemicals besides catechins in 30 Chinese teas.
| No. | Name | Category | Gallic Acid | Chlorogenic Acid | Caffeine | Ellagic Acid | Kaempferol-3-O-Glucoside | Theaflavine |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dianhong Congou Black Tea | Black Tea | 2.693 ± 0.161 | 0.187 ± 0.005 | 35.283 ± 0.340 | 3.572 ± 0.087 | 1.588 ± 0.046 | 0.526 ± 0.019 |
| 2 | Keemun Black Tea | Black Tea | 2.706 ± 0.117 | 0.176 ± 0.005 | 31.452 ± 0.140 | 2.214 ± 0.070 | - | 0.542 ± 0.010 |
| 3 | Lapsang Souchong Black Tea | Black Tea | 1.748 ± 0.050 | - | 23.759 ± 0.150 | - | 0.385 ± 0.027 | 0.488 ± 0.012 |
| 4 | Yichang Congou Black Tea | Black Tea | 3.546 ± 0.050 | 0.188 ± 0.005 | 41.631 ± 0.312 | 2.614 ± 0.078 | 1.454 ± 0.099 | 0.559 ± 0.018 |
| 5 | Fuzhuan Brick Tea | Dark Tea | 3.097 ± 0.122 | 0.284 ± 0.016 | 27.075 ± 0.166 | 2.213 ± 0.067 | 1.002 ± 0.040 | 0.480 ± 0.008 |
| 6 | Liupao Tea | Dark Tea | 2.003 ± 0.018 | - | 30.565 ± 0.162 | 2.108 ± 0.022 | 0.519 ± 0.016 | - |
| 7 | Pu-erh Tea | Dark Tea | 1.644 ± 0.081 | - | 31.320 ± 0.310 | 2.165 ± 0.072 | 0.550 ± 0.043 | - |
| 8 | Qingzhuan Brick tea | Dark Tea | 1.507 ± 0.031 | - | 12.273 ± 0.040 | - | - | - |
| 9 | Tibetan Tea | Dark Tea | 2.203 ± 0.062 | - | 16.930 ± 0.101 | 1.553 ± 0.003 | - | - |
| 10 | Dianqing Tea | Green Tea | 1.430 ± 0.086 | 0.374 ± 0.016 | 39.764 ± 0.382 | 2.135 ± 0.037 | 1.605 ± 0.067 | - |
| 11 | Dongting Biluochun Tea | Green Tea | 0.708 ± 0.046 | 0.190 ± 0.006 | 31.993 ± 0.551 | - | 0.434 ± 0.030 | - |
| 12 | Duyun Maojian Tea | Green Tea | 1.129 ± 0.071 | - | 36.230 ± 0.563 | 1.875 ± 0.017 | 1.737 ± 0.090 | - |
| 13 | Enshi Yulu Tea | Green Tea | 1.392 ± 0.079 | - | 34.706 ± 0.383 | 1.756 ± 0.025 | - | - |
| 14 | Lu’an Guapian Tea | Green Tea | 0.533 ± 0.032 | 0.218 ± 0.009 | 29.232 ± 0.438 | - | - | - |
| 15 | Lushan Yunwu Tea | Green Tea | 0.847 ± 0.057 | 0.276 ± 0.013 | 37.778 ± 0.481 | - | - | - |
| 16 | Taiping Houkui Tea | Green Tea | 0.761 ± 0.043 | 0.241 ± 0.013 | 29.493 ± 0.346 | - | 0.347 ± 0.007 | - |
| 17 | Xihu Longjing Tea | Green Tea | 0.931 ± 0.043 | - | 38.508 ± 0.117 | 2.069 ± 0.097 | - | - |
| 18 | Yongxi Huoqing Tea | Green Tea | 1.060 ± 0.037 | 0.262 ± 0.011 | 30.783 ± 0.482 | 1.799 ± 0.026 | - | - |
| 19 | Fenghuang Shuixian Tea | Oolong Tea | 3.284 ± 0.141 | - | 34.770 ± 0.138 | 1.880 ± 0.062 | 1.185 ± 0.079 | - |
| 20 | Luohan Chenxiang Tea | Oolong Tea | 0.696 ± 0.061 | 0.232 ± 0.006 | 30.083 ± 0.287 | - | 0.572 ± 0.047 | - |
| 21 | Tieguanyin Tea | Oolong Tea | 0.294 ± 0.021 | 0.176 ± 0.015 | 14.842 ± 0.167 | - | - | - |
| 22 | Wuyi Rock Tea | Oolong Tea | 2.383 ± 0.142 | - | 25.881 ± 0.335 | - | - | 0.545 ± 0.011 |
| 23 | Gongmei White Tea | White Tea | 2.179 ± 0.038 | - | 27.466 ± 0.059 | - | 0.498 ± 0.015 | - |
| 24 | Shoumei White Tea | White Tea | 2.022 ± 0.026 | - | 25.303 ± 0.035 | - | 0.357 ± 0.021 | - |
| 25 | White Peony Tea | White Tea | 2.486 ± 0.026 | - | 28.758 ± 0.033 | - | - | |
| 26 | Huoshan Large Yellow Tea | Yellow Tea | 3.822 ± 0.111 | 0.241 ± 0.009 | 34.201 ± 0.036 | 3.326 ± 0.037 | 0.562 ± 0.031 | - |
| 27 | Junshan Yinzhen Tea | Yellow Tea | 0.940 ± 0.019 | - | 41.457 ± 0.322 | 1.882 ± 0.052 | 1.051 ± 0.045 | - |
| 28 | Mengding Huangya Tea | Yellow Tea | 1.495 ± 0.073 | 0.313 ± 0.007 | 36.022 ± 0.166 | 3.357 ± 0.065 | 0.499 ± 0.030 | - |
| 29 | Weishan Maojian Tea | Yellow Tea | 0.752 ± 0.038 | 0.249 ± 0.009 | 37.348 ± 0.220 | 1.849 ± 0.039 | 0.688 ± 0.035 | - |
| 30 | Yuan’an Luyuan Tea | Yellow Tea | 0.929 ± 0.031 | 0.273 ± 0.007 | 40.737 ± 0.116 | 2.190 ± 0.023 | 1.076 ± 0.036 | - |
DW, dry weight, “-“ means not detected.
Table 9.
Comparison among natural products regarding FRAP, TEAC, and TPC values.
| Index | Natural Product | MIN | QL | M | QU | MAX | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FRAP (μmol Fe(II)/g) | 30 Chinese Teas (dry) | 611.2 | 1107.8 | 2156.9 | 3465.6 | 5375.2 | This study |
| 223 Medicinal Plants (dry) | 0.1 | 19.6 | 65.3 | 158.4 | 1844.9 | [26] | |
| 34 Fruit Seeds (fresh) | 0.3 | 5.5 | 11.3 | 16.1 | 181.4 | [36] | |
| 48 Fruit Peels (fresh) | 0.0 | 6.1 | 14.2 | 27.3 | 155.7 | [36] | |
| 56 Wild Fruits (fresh) | 1.3 | 12.9 | 40.3 | 135.8 | 502.0 | [37] | |
| 49 Macro-fungi (dry) | 7.9 | 15.1 | 22.1 | 34.5 | 204.7 | [38] | |
| 51 Flowers (fresh) | 0.2 | 16.2 | 27.6 | 70.0 | 660.2 | [39] | |
| 10 Grape Seeds (fresh) | 312.4 | 357.0 | 497.3 | 671.7 | 858.1 | [18] | |
| 30 Grape Peels (fresh) | 18.3 | 59.9 | 99.9 | 131.9 | 253.0 | [18] | |
| 30 Grape Pulps (fresh) | 1.3 | 2.9 | 4.9 | 6.7 | 11.8 | [40] | |
| 62 Fruits (fresh) | 0.1 | 3.9 | 6.7 | 10.2 | 72.1 | [24] | |
| 56 Vegetables (fresh) | 2.7 | 6.9 | 10.1 | 13.7 | 60.9 | [23] | |
| TEAC (μmol Trolox/g) | 30 Chinese Teas (dry) | 326.3 | 655.9 | 1396.7 | 2046.0 | 3004.4 | This study |
| 223 Medicinal Plants (dry) | 1.0 | 23.5 | 55.8 | 116.6 | 1544.4 | [26] | |
| 34 Fruit Seeds (fresh) | 2.5 | 7.6 | 12.5 | 19.1 | 92.6 | [36] | |
| 48 Fruit Peels (fresh) | 0.0 | 6.7 | 14.2 | 28.6 | 93.1 | [36] | |
| 56 Wild Fruits (fresh) | 3.4 | 17.6 | 32.7 | 114.8 | 1140.0 | [37] | |
| 49 Macro-fungi (dry) | 4.7 | 8.6 | 9.8 | 20.3 | 85.7 | [38] | |
| 51 Flowers (fresh) | 0.2 | 8.0 | 12.8 | 35.1 | 191.8 | [39] | |
| 10 Grape Seeds (fresh) | 207.8 | 227.6 | 274.5 | 345.8 | 473.5 | [18] | |
| 30 Grape Peels (fresh) | 5.2 | 27.8 | 50.4 | 64.2 | 123.7 | [18] | |
| 30 Grape Pulps (fresh) | 0.3 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 2.6 | 4.8 | [40] | |
| 62 Fruits (fresh) | 0.8 | 2.4 | 3.6 | 5.0 | 80.7 | [24] | |
| 56 Vegetables (fresh) | 6.9 | 10.3 | 12.8 | 15.3 | 33.6 | [23] | |
| TPC (mg GAE/g) | 30 Chinese Teas (dry) | 37.3 | 92.7 | 163.8 | 202.5 | 254.3 | This study |
| 223 Medicinal Plants (dry) | 0.2 | 3.8 | 8.1 | 14.4 | 98.9 | [26] | |
| 34 Fruit Seeds (fresh) | 0.3 | 2.8 | 3.7 | 4.8 | 23.0 | [36] | |
| 48 Fruit Peels (fresh) | 0.4 | 3.5 | 4.2 | 6.5 | 23.0 | [36] | |
| 56 Wild Fruits (fresh) | 0.5 | 1.9 | 6.1 | 15.8 | 54.8 | [37] | |
| 49 Macro-fungi (dry) | 2.4 | 4.0 | 4.9 | 6.5 | 44.8 | [38] | |
| 51 Flowers (fresh) | 0.6 | 3.4 | 4.9 | 8.0 | 36.7 | [39] | |
| 10 Grape Seeds (fresh) | 34.6 | 37.3 | 47.2 | 59.4 | 71.2 | [18] | |
| 30 Grape Peels (fresh) | 1.6 | 6.3 | 10.6 | 13.2 | 25.7 | [18] | |
| 30 Grape Pulps (fresh) | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.4 | [40] | |
| 62 Fruits (fresh) | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 5.9 | [24] | |
| 56 Vegetables (fresh) | 5.0 | 6.7 | 7.8 | 9.4 | 23.3 | [23] |
Abbreviations: FRAP, ferric-reducing antioxidant power; M, median; MAX, the maximum value; MIN, the minimum value; QL, the lower quartile; QU, the upper quartile; TEAC, Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity; TPC, total phenolic content.
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Tang, G.-Y.; Zhao, C.-N.; Xu, X.-Y.; Gan, R.-Y.; Cao, S.-Y.; Liu, Q.; Shang, A.; Mao, Q.-Q.; Li, H.-B. Phytochemical Composition and Antioxidant Capacity of 30 Chinese Teas. Antioxidants 2019, 8, 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox8060180
AMA Style
Tang G-Y, Zhao C-N, Xu X-Y, Gan R-Y, Cao S-Y, Liu Q, Shang A, Mao Q-Q, Li H-B. Phytochemical Composition and Antioxidant Capacity of 30 Chinese Teas. Antioxidants. 2019; 8(6):180. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox8060180
Chicago/Turabian StyleTang, Guo-Yi, Cai-Ning Zhao, Xiao-Yu Xu, Ren-You Gan, Shi-Yu Cao, Qing Liu, Ao Shang, Qian-Qian Mao, and Hua-Bin Li. 2019. "Phytochemical Composition and Antioxidant Capacity of 30 Chinese Teas" Antioxidants 8, no. 6: 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox8060180
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
