A strategy to distinguish similar traditional Chinese medicines by liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry, electronic senses, and gas chromatography–ion mobility spectrometry: Marsdeniae tenacissimae Caulis and Paederiae scandens Caulis as examples

Abstract Introduction Marsdeniae tenacissimae Caulis (MTC), a popular traditional Chinese medicine, has been widely used in the treatment of tumor diseases. Paederiae scandens Caulis (PSC), which is similar in appearance to MTC, is a common counterfeit product. It is difficult for traditional methods to effectively distinguish between MTC and PSC. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a rapid and accurate method to identify MTC and PSC. Objectives The aim is to distinguish between MTC and PSC by analyzing the differences in nonvolatile organic compounds (NVOCs), taste, odor, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Methods Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC‐MS) was utilized to analyze the NVOCs of MTC and PSC. Electronic tongue (E‐tongue) and electronic nose (E‐nose) were used to analyze their taste and odor respectively. Gas chromatography–ion mobility spectrometry (GC‐IMS) was applied to analyze VOCs. Finally, multivariate statistical analyses were conducted to further investigate the differences between MTC and PSC, including principal component analysis, orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis, discriminant factor analysis, and soft independent modeling of class analysis. Results The results of this study indicate that the integrated strategy of LC‐MS, E‐tongue, E‐nose, GC‐IMS, and multivariate statistical analysis can be effectively applied to distinguish between MTC and PSC. Using LC‐MS, 25 NVOCs were identified in MTC, while 18 NVOCs were identified in PSC. The major compounds in MTC are steroids, while the major compounds in PSC are iridoid glycosides. Similarly, the distinct taste difference between MTC and PSC was precisely revealed by the E‐tongue. Specifically, the pronounced bitterness in PSC was proven to stem from iridoid glycosides, whereas the bitterness evident in MTC was intimately tied to steroids. The E‐nose detected eight odor components in MTC and six in PSC, respectively. The subsequent statistical analysis uncovered notable differences in their odor profiles. GC‐IMS provided a visual representation of the differences in VOCs between MTC and PSC. The results indicated a relatively high relative content of 82 VOCs in MTC, contrasted with 32 VOCs exhibiting a similarly high relative content in PSC. Conclusion In this study, for the first time, the combined use of LC‐MS, E‐tongue, E‐nose, GC‐IMS, and multivariate statistical analysis has proven to be an effective method for distinguishing between MTC and PSC from multiple perspectives. This approach provides a valuable reference for the identification of other visually similar traditional Chinese medicines.