4.7 Article

Development of a LC-MS/MS method using stable isotope dilution for the quantification of individual B6vitamers in fruits, vegetables, and cereals

期刊

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 412, 期 26, 页码 7237-7252

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-020-02857-5

关键词

Food; LC-MS; MS; Stable isotope dilution assay; Pyridoxine; Pyridoxal; Pyridoxamine

资金

  1. Chair of Food Chemistry and Molecular Science, Technical University Munich, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vitamin B(6)comprises an important set of molecules tightly interwoven with the human amino acid, fatty acid, and carbohydrate metabolism. Analytical methods striving for the quantification of individual B(6)vitamers so far mostly rely on methods based on HPLC in combination with fluorescence detection, but their application encounters multiple difficulties due to the chemical divergence of the single vitamers. The present study describes the development of a method based on LC-MS/MS and stable isotope dilution assay (SIDA) for the simultaneous quantification of five vitamers (PN, PL, PM, PMP, and PNG) of the B(6)group in food samples. [C-13(3)]-PN, [C-13(3)]-PL, and [C-13(6)]-PNG were applied as internal standards for the analysis of PN, PL, and PNG. PM and PMP were quantified via matrix-matched calibration referring to [C-13(3)]-PN. The developed method was validated using starch matrix. The limits of detection and quantification ranged from 0.0028 to 0.02 mg/kg and from 0.0085 to 0.059 mg/kg, respectively, for all analytes. Calculated recoveries varied from 92 to 111%. Intra-injection precisions ranged from 0 to 9%, inter-day precisions from 4 to 10%, and intra-day precisions from 4 to 10%. A total of 14 plant-based food samplesincludingfruits, vegetables, and cereals were examined for their content of vitamin B(6)using the validated method. Furthermore, the first quantitation of PNG without enzymatic steps or divergent internal standards was undertaken utilizing LC-MS/MS and SIDA.

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