4.2 Article

Improved quantification of catechin and epicatechin in red rice (Oryza sativa L.) using stable isotope dilution liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry

期刊

APPLIED BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 65, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER SINGAPORE PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s13765-022-00754-2

关键词

Catechin; Epicatechin; Epimerization; Stable isotope; Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry

资金

  1. Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science & Technology Development - Rural Development Administration (RDA), Republic of Korea
  2. Research Assistance Program (2019) in the Incheon National University, Republic of Korea [PJ01706903]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Epimerization can be controlled using stable-isotope-labeled internal standards to maintain stable catechin content. The least significant epimerization effect and highest extractability were observed when extraction was performed at 70℃ for 30 min.
Epimerization can change the catechin content and composition of samples during extraction and analytical analyses. To control the effect of epimerization, we developed a novel and stable isotope dilution liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) method using catechin-2,3,4-C-13(3) and epicatechin-2,3,4-C-13(3) as stable-isotope-labeled internal standards (SIL-ISs). When the SIL-ISs were used, the catechin and epicatechin contents were stable (104-109% and 100-109% of the initial concentration, respectively) despite long storage times. In contrast, when L-2-chlorophenylalanine was used as an internal standard, catechin and epicatechin concentrations of 88-97% and 164-277% of the initial concentration, respectively, were obtained after long storage times. Furthermore, the least significant epimerization effect and highest extractability were observed when extraction was performed at 70 ?for 30 min. The recoveries for red rice using the developed isotope dilution LC-MS method at two different concentrations were between 100.72 and 118.67%, with relative standard deviations less than 3.67%.

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

4.2
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