4.6 Article

Quantification of the Organic Acids in Hawthorn Wine: A Comparison of Two HPLC Methods

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 24, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules24112150

关键词

hawthorn wine; organic acids; high-performance liquid chromatography methods; enzymatic method

资金

  1. major agricultural application technology innovation projects of Shandong Province in 2018 (Title: New alcoholic fermented and liquor products from low -value apple and hawthorn wine, food safety key issues solutions, and promotion demonstration)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hawthorn wine is rich in anthocyanins, polyphenols, flavonoids and other macromolecular substances, which results in difficulty to rapidly determine organic acids in the wine. An enzymatic method is accurate but expensive and not able to quantify all of the organic acids simultaneously. Therefore, in this study, two HPLC methods were applied to quantify the organic acids in the wine with the enzymatic method as a reference. Seven organic acids were found with the enzymatic method including citric, succinic, l-malic, acetic, lactic, pyruvic, and fumaric acids, in which citric and succinic acid accounted for more than 80% of the total acids. By an 87H column equipped with DAD (diode array) detector at 215 nm (HPLC method 1), only citric and lactic acids were quantified accurately and the elution period was shortened from 100 min to 20 min by removing the impurity in the sample with a LC-18 SPE(solid-phase extraction) tube. While citric, succinic, l-malic, acetic, pyruvic, and fumaric acids were quantified reliably by a dC18 column equipped with DAD detector at 210 nm (HPLC method 2), with the sample requires only dilution and filtration before injection. It was suggested that HPLC method 2 was an effective method to quantify the organic acids in hawthorn wine. The method provides a choice for accurate quantification of organic acids in hawthorn wine or other drinks, and would be helpful for controlling the quality of hawthorn wine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据