4.6 Article

Effect of Weakly Basic Conditions on the Separation and Purification of Flavonoids and Glycosides from Chrysanthemum morifolium Tea

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules24020297

关键词

weakly basic condition; Chrysanthemum morifolium tea; chlorogenic acid; apigenin-7-O-glucoside; hydrolysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31871807]
  2. Special Fund for Agro-Scientific Research in the Public Interest [201503142]
  3. National Students' Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program [201810019094]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tea brewed from chrysanthemum flowers has been widely used in Chinese medicine. The possibly medicinal compounds in Chrysanthemum morifolium tea can be purified by preparative high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), but this is usually done with acidic conditions, which leads to the hydrolysis of glycosides. In hopes of avoiding this hydrolysis, we explored the effect of weakly basic conditions on the separation and purification of flavonoids and glycosides from Chrysanthemum morifolium. We also explored the effects of weakly basic conditions on chlorogenic acid (3-CQA) and apigenin-7-O-glucoside (A7G). Our results show that the concentration of the weakly basic ammonium hydrogen carbonate and time had no significant effect on A7G, p < 0.01, but it had a significant effect on 3-CQA, p < 0.01. HPLC and ultraviolet (UV) analysis showed that the structure of 3-CQA is destroyed in weakly basic conditions. Caffeic acid, quinic acid, and 3,4-dihydroxymandelic acid, which is a hydrolysate of 3-CQA, were identified by ultra-performance liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (UPLC-Q-TOF-MS). The results showed that weakly basic conditions could be used for the purification of flavonoids and glycosides but not for caffeoylquinic acids. Moreover, our work clarified the hydrolysis behaviour of caffeoylquinic acids, which can be helpful for research into their functional aspects.

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

4.6
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