Comparative Study of Chuanxiong Rhizoma and Wine‐Processed Chuanxiong Rhizoma Based on HS‐GC–MS and Intelligent Sensory Technology

Objective: To investigate the differences in odor characteristics and volatile components between raw and wine‐processed Chuanxiong Rhizoma and to establish a rapid differentiation method based on taste, smell, color, and volatile chemical components. Methods: Electronic tongue, electronic nose, and ultraviolet spectrophotometer were used to analyze 23 batches of raw and wine‐processed Chuanxiong Rhizoma. Principal component analysis, one‐way ANOVA, and orthogonal partial least‐squares discriminant analysis were employed to differentiate between Chuanxiong Rhizoma and alcoholic Chuanxiong Rhizoma. Headspace gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (HS‐GC–MS) and multivariate statistical analysis were used to identify potential differential components between raw and wine‐processed Chuanxiong Rhizoma. Correlation analysis of these differential components with odor and color was performed to identify the main compounds responsible for the differences in odor and color. Results: The electronic tongue analysis showed that after alcohol processing, Chuanxiong Rhizoma exhibited a significant decrease in aftertaste and umami, a notable reduction in saltiness, and a significant increase in sweetness, enabling rapid differentiation between raw and wine‐processed Chuanxiong Rhizoma. The electronic nose analysis indicated that odor differences were primarily detected by sensors W1W and W2W, which can be used to quickly distinguish between raw and wine‐processed Chuanxiong Rhizoma. The ultraviolet spectrophotometer results showed no significant color differences between raw and wine‐processed Chuanxiong Rhizoma, making it difficult to distinguish between the two. HS‐GC–MS identified 18 differential components between raw and wine‐processed Chuanxiong Rhizoma. Pearson correlation analysis of volatile components and odor revealed that the main differential compounds include monoterpenes, alcohols, and aliphatic aldehydes. Notably, isoterpinolene, isoamyl alcohol, 2‐ethyl‐2‐hexenal, and hexenal were found to significantly contribute to odor differences, indicating a relationship between these differential components and the efficacy changes in Chuanxiong Rhizoma before and after wine processing. Conclusion: The combined use of the electronic tongue, electronic nose, and HS‐GC–MS enables rapid and accurate differentiation between raw and wine‐processed Chuanxiong Rhizoma. This method is valuable for the processing and quality control of traditional Chinese medicines.