4.7 Article

Determination of vitamin C in tropical fruits:: A comparative evaluation of methods

Journal

FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 96, Issue 4, Pages 654-664

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.04.012

Keywords

L-ascorbic acid; L-dehydroascorbic acid; banana; papaya; mango; pineapple; liquid chromatography

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two analytical methods for extracting vitamin C (L-ascorbic and L-dehydroascorbic acids) in tropical fruits [banana, papaya, mango (at three maturity stages) and pineapple] were evaluated. These methods used ion-pair liquid chromatography (LC) for detecting ascorbic acid, but differed in the preparation of the sample (extraction with 3% metaphosphoric acid -8% acetic acid or 0.1% oxalic acid). Results were validated by comparison with ascorbic acid content obtained by the AOACs official titrimetric method, by performing a recovery study and by the determination of within-day repeatability and inter-day reproducibility. There were differences in the efficiency of vitamin C extraction related to the fruit matrix and especially to the maturity stage in climacteric fruits. The LC-extraction method using 3% metaphosphoric acid -8% acetic acid shows high mean recoveries (99 +/- 6%) for all matrices assayed, while the LC-extraction method with 0.1% oxalic acid proved to be unacceptable in some cases (unripe, half ripe and ripe banana and ripe mango) obtaining mean recoveries of 39.9 +/- 9.1% and 72 +/- 13% for banana and mango, respectively. The detection limit achieved with the metaphosphoric acid-acetic acid LC-extraction method for ascorbic acid (0.1 mg/l) allowed the determination of this vitamin in fruits analysed with good precision (5.94-12.8%), making its use as a routine analysis method perfectly valid. Recommendations about storage temperature, methods of thawing L-ascorbic acid extracts and the addition of antioxidants to extracts were made. (C) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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