4.5 Article

Comprehensive two-dimensional liquid chromatographic analysis of rooibos (Aspalathus linearis) phenolics

期刊

JOURNAL OF SEPARATION SCIENCE
卷 35, 期 14, 页码 1808-1820

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jssc.201200060

关键词

Comprehensive two-dimensional liquid chromatography (LC LC); Hydrophilic interaction chromatography (HILIC); Mass spectrometry; Phenolic compounds; Rooibos

资金

  1. National Research Foundation (South Africa) [67143, 70995]
  2. South African Rooibos Council
  3. Technology and Human Resources for Industry Programme [72065]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rooibos tea is an unique beverage prepared from unfermented and fermented plant material of the endemic Cape fynbos plant, Aspalathus linearis. The well-known health-promoting benefits of rooibos are partly attributed to its phenolic composition. Detailed investigation of the minor phenolic constituents of rooibos is, however, hampered by the limitations associated with conventional HPLC methods used for its analysis. In this study, the applicability of comprehensive two-dimensional liquid chromatographic methods for the in-depth analysis of rooibos phenolics was investigated. Phenolic compounds were separated according to polarity by hydrophilic interaction chromatography (HILIC) in the first dimension, whilst reversed-phase liquid chromatography (RP-LC) provided separation according to hydrophobicity in the second dimension. Ultraviolet photodiode array and electrospray ionisation mass spectrometry were used to identify phenolic compounds. Comprehensive HILIC x RP-LC demonstrated its applicability for the analysis of a diverse range of phenolic compounds in unfermented and fermented rooibos samples, in which large qualitative differences in the phenolic composition were established. The combination of these orthogonal separations provided a significant improvement in resolution, as exemplified by practical peak capacities in excess of 2000 and 500 for off-line and on-line methods, respectively.

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

4.5
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