4.2 Article

Quantification of glucosinolates in nozawana (Brassica rapa L.) and evaluation via single- and multi-laboratory validation studies

Journal

FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH
Volume 27, Issue 6, Pages 897-906

Publisher

JAPANESE SOC FOOD SCI & TECHNOLOGY
DOI: 10.3136/fstr.27.897

Keywords

glucosinolate; nozawana (Brassica rapa L; ); liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry; validation study; HorRat

Funding

  1. Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery and Forestry, Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A simple method was developed to quantify glucosinolates in nozawana, with validation studies showing high reproducibility and accuracy. Single and multi-laboratory validation studies indicated that the method met the accuracy standards, demonstrating good reproducibility for primary glucosinolates in nozawana.
Glucosinolates in cruciferous plants have been reported to exhibit various health benefits. Consequently, several studies have focused on the quantification of glucosinolates. A simple method was developed in this study to quantify glucosinolates in nozawana (Brassica rapa L.), and the validity of the developed method was evaluated. Glucosinolates were extracted from a dry powder of nozawana, solid phase extraction was performed, and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry measurements were conducted. A single-laboratory validation study on the developed method suggested that the relative repeatability standard deviation, relative intermediate standard deviation, and recovery rate of the spike and recovery tests complied with the accuracy standards of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) guidelines. Additionally, a multi-laboratory (three laboratories) validation study revealed that although the Horwitz ratio (HorRat) for trace glucosinolates was over 2, that for the primary glucosinolates in nozawana was less than 2, indicating an appreciable degree of reproducibility.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available