RESUMO
ObjectiveOn the basis of sensory evaluation， the changes of volatile components in gecko before and after processing were compared， and the odor correction effect of different processing methods of gecko was discussed. MethodRaw products， fried yellow products， vinegar processed products， wine processed products， talcum powder scalding products and white wine sprayed products after scalding talcum powder of gecko were prepared， and 10 odor assessors were invited to evaluate the 6 samples in turn by sensory evaluation. Headspace solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry （HS-SPME-GC-MS） and relative odor activity value （ROAV） were used to analyze the key odor components， and multivariate statistical methods were used to analyze the difference of volatile components between raw and processed products of gecko. Taking water-soluble extract and protein contents as internal indicators， sensory evaluation score and content ranking of differential components as external indicators， and assigning a weight of 0.25 to them respectively， the comprehensive scores of raw products and processed products of gecko were calculated to evaluate the odor correction effect of each processing method. ResultThe average sensory evaluation scores of the raw products， fried yellow products， vinegar processed products， wine processed products， talcum powder scalding products and white wine sprayed products after scalding talcum powder of gecko were 1.6， 5.2， 6.2， 6.1， 7.2 and 8.0， respectively. ROAV results showed that key components affecting odor of gecko were 2-ethyl-3，5-dimethylpyrazine， isovaleraldehyde， trimethylamine， 1-octen-3-ol， n-octanal， nonanal， 2-methylnaphthalene， γ-octanolide， 2-heptanone and phenol. Principal component analysis （PCA） significantly distinguished raw products from processed products. Orthogonal partial least squares-discriminant analysis （OPLS-DA） results showed that there were 16， 13， 16， 16， 16 differential components between raw products， fried yellow products， vinegar processed products， wine processed products， talcum powder scalding products and white wine sprayed products after scalding talcum powder of gecko. Among these differential components， there were 4 common components， namely， the contents of different odor components （2-methylnaphthalene and 2-ethyl-p-xylene） decreased， while the contents of different flavor components （2-decanone and 2，3，5-trimethylpyrazine） increased. The comprehensive scoring results showed that the odor correction effect of each processed products was in the order of talcum powder scalding products>wine processed products>vinegar processed products>fried yellow products>white wine sprayed products after scalding talcum powder. ConclusionTalcum powder scalding is a better method to improve the odor of gecko， and it can provide an experimental basis for the processing of gecko to correct the odor.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE To establish the fingerprint of Huatan qushi huoxue decoction （HQHD），and to explore the effects of processing and decoction methods on its components. METHODS Using salvianolic acid B as reference ，HPLC fingerprints of 10 batches of single and mixed decoction of crude drugs ，single and mixed decoction of processed products （original formula referred to 8 ingredients were crude drugs ；processed formula referred to processed products of Alisma orientale ，Salvia miltiorrhiza ， Curcumae Radix and Bupleuri Radix ，and crude drugs of other ingredients ；single decoction referred to the mixing of each ingredient after being decocted separately ；mixed decoction refers to decocting after mixing all ingredients ）were stablished by Similarity Evaluation System of Chromatographic Fingerprints of Traditional Chinese Medicine （2012 edition）. The similarity evaluation，common peak identification and attribution ，chemical pattern recognition analysis were also carried out. RESULTS There were 37 common peaks in each fingerprint of 10 batches of single and mixed decoction of crude drugs ，single and mixed decoction of processed ，the similarities with control fingerprint were higher than or close to 0.950. Nine common peaks were identified，i.e. rutin （peak 12），hesperidin（peak 13），salvianolic acid B （peak 16），quercetin（peak 20），silybin（peak 22）， luteolin（peak 23），autrantio-obtusin（peak 29），23-acetylalismol C （peak 34），saikosaponin b 2（peak 35）；decoction pieces of 8 ingredients all contributed to the fingerprints of HQHD. Principal component analysis （PCA）showed that the 4 kinds of HQHD samples were grouped into one category ，respectively. The clustering result of partial least squares-discriminant analysis was consistent with that of PCA. Corresponding components of peak 1，15，17，18 and 36，salvianolic acid B and luteolin m ay be the differential markers of the quality for mixed decoction samples of crude drugs and processed products ； corresponding components of peak 1，7，17-19，salvianolic acid B and hesperidin may be the differential markers of the quality for single decoction samples of crude drugs and processed products；corresponding components of peak 1，17-19，36， salvianolic acid B and luteolin may be the differential markers of the quality for single decoction and mixed decoction samples of crude drugs ；corresponding components of peak 7，17-19，21， hesperidin，salvianolic acid B ，rutin，luteolin and autrantio-obtusin may be the differential markers of the quality for single decoction and mixed decoction samples of processed products. CONCLUSIONS The established fingerprint of HQHD is stable and reliable. The quality differential components of different decoction samples are luteolin ，hesperidin，etc. The quality differential components of samples processed or not are rutin ，hesperidin，autrantio-obtusin，etc.