4.7 Article

Comparison of different sample preparation treatments for the analysis of wine phenolic compounds in human plasma by reversed phase high-performance liquid chromatography

Journal

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
Volume 502, Issue 1, Pages 49-55

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2003.09.045

Keywords

phenolic compounds; wine; plasma; bioavailability; HPLC; flavonoids; trans-resveratrol

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Phenolic compounds are common constituents of wine. Due to their healthy properties the analysis in human fluids is interesting within bioavailability evaluation. They have been reported not to be stable in human plasma, particularly at room temperature. Most sample treatments have been reported for a single compound. Our aim in this paper is to study sample handling control conditions and improve phenolic stability in human plasma samples. We tested various sample treatments to determine whether they could be used for analysing a set of phenolic compounds usually present in wines. The compounds studied were six phenolic acids, five flavonoids, trans-resveratrol and tyrosol. The effect of the following factors was explored: temperature, pH, the addition of antioxidants and the addition of anticoagulants. The results suggest that the plasma samples should be kept at temperatures below -20degreesC before analysis and that 1% ascorbic acid plus 10 mul/ml o-phosphoric acid should be added. Anticoagulants (heparin or EDTA) do not play a significant role in the stability of polyphenolic compounds. The recovery values of a number of sample treatments (solid phase extraction, extraction with methanol, deproteinization, inhibition of enzymatic plasma activity) were compared. The recovery values for most phenolic compounds were better if the enzymatic plasma activity was inhibited and acidified ethanol was used for deproteinization. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. 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