ArticleJournal of food science2025
The Sensory and Physicochemical Properties of Honeybush Tea Depend on the Brewing Water: A Preliminary Study.
Article in Journal of food science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Sensory and Physicochemical Properties of Honeybush Tea Depend on the Brewing Water: A Preliminary Study.Journal of food science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigated how different water types affected honeybush (Cyclopia species) tea quality. Water types, varying in physicochemical properties, were used to brew tea from three honeybush species: C. intermedia, C. subternata, and C. genistoides (n = 6/species). The water types were deionized water (W1), two bottled spring waters (W2, W3), bottled reverse osmosis water (W4), brackish water (W5), and tap water (W6). Descriptive sensory analysis was used to determine whether water type affected the sensory profile of the infusions. Other parameters included CIEL*a*b* color and turbidity, as well as the soluble solids and phenolic content of the infusions. Results showed that water with the highest pH (W3; pH = 8.3) and high EC (W3 and W5; EC >10 mS/m) negatively impacted the sensory profile of honeybush tea. Infusions made with W3 and W5 had a 'date pudding' aroma, which was uncharacteristic of honeybush, and lower intensities of typical floral and sweet-associated honeybush aromas. These water samples also led to a salty taste, thick mouthfeel, and much darker color. Additionally, the concentrations of phenolic compounds, such as 3-β-D-glucopyranosyl-4-O-β-D-glucopyranosyliriflophenone, mangiferin, and isomangiferin, were reduced. Infusions prepared with W2, W4, and W6 (pH between 5.3 and 7.8; EC <10 mS/m) showed similar sensory and physicochemical profiles to those prepared with deionized water (pH = 7.1; EC = 0 mS/m). PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: For the best-tasting honeybush tea, consumers should use water treated by reverse osmosis, with guaranteed low mineral content. This information will help producers and tea merchants present the true flavor of honeybush tea during tastings, supporting effective marketing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.