4.7 Article

Determination of methylxanthine contents and risk characterisation for various types of tea in Korea

Journal

FOOD CONTROL
Volume 132, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108543

Keywords

Caffeine; Theobromine; Theophylline; Exposure estimation; Tea

Funding

  1. SeoulTech (Seoul National University of Science and Technology) [2021-0207]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Analysis of various teas showed different levels of caffeine, theobromine, and theophylline, with Pu-erh tea having the highest caffeine content, and hibiscus tea having the highest theobromine and theophylline content. Daily intake levels of methylxanthines were found to be low compared to recommended levels based on a Korean nutrition survey.
Tea leaves contain methylxanthines, such as caffeine, which have various physiological and pharmacological effects in vivo. Caffeine, theobromine and theophylline were analysed in various teas to determine the exposure amount and health risk of methylxanthine intake from tea. All the determined validation parameters of the HPLC analysis method, which included specificity, linearity of the calibration curve, detection limit, reproducibility and accuracy, showed satisfactory results. When 83 leached extracts of 11 different teas were analysed by the HPLC method, the average contents of caffeine, theobromine and theophylline were 5561.5, 407.3 and 24.8 mg/ kg, respectively. Pu-erh tea contained the highest average levels of caffeine, while hibiscus tea presented the highest average levels of theobromine and theophylline. Based on the seventh Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data on food intake, the daily intake of caffeine, theobromine and theophylline was calculated as 30.819, 1.408 and 0.011 mu g/kg body weight/day, respectively, showing low levels of methylxanthine intake compared to the recommended daily intakes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available