4.7 Article

Rapid Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses of Proanthocyanidin Oligomers and Polymers by UPLC-MS/MS

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 62, 期 15, 页码 3390-3399

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf500745y

关键词

proanthocyanidin; procyanidin; prodelphinidin; tannins; mass spectrometry; MRM

资金

  1. Turku University Foundation, Academy of Finland [258992]
  2. University of Turku Graduate School (UTUGS)
  3. EU Marie Curie Initial Training Network [PITN-GA-2011-289377]
  4. RS Specific Cooperative Agreement with University of Reading [58-3655-0-155F]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents the development of a rapid method with ultraperformance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) for the qualitative and quantitative analyses of plant proanthocyanidins directly from crude plant extracts. The method utilizes a range of cone voltages to achieve the depolymerization step in the ion source of both smaller oligomers and larger polymers. The formed depolymerization products are further fragmented in the collision cell to enable their selective detection. This UPLC-MS/MS method is able to separately quantitate the terminal and extension units of the most common proanthocyanidin subclasses, that is, procyanidins and prodelphinidins. The resulting data enable (1) quantitation of the total proanthocyanidin content, (2) quantitation of total procyanidins and prodelphinidins including the procyanidin/prodelphinidin ratio, (3) estimation of the mean degree of polymerization for the oligomers and polymers, and (4) estimation of how the different procyanidin and prodelphinidin types are distributed along the chromatographic hump typically produced by large proanthocyanidins. All of this is achieved within the 10 min period of analysis, which makes the presented method a significant addition to the chemistry tools currently available for the qualitative and quantitative analyses of complex proanthocyanidin mixtures from plant extracts.

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

4.7
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