4.7 Article

Quantitative determination of phenolic antioxidants in fruit juices by GC-MS/MS using automated injector port silylation after QuEChERS extraction

期刊

MICROCHEMICAL JOURNAL
卷 160, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.microc.2020.105705

关键词

Fruit juices; Gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry; Injector port silylation; Phenolic antioxidants; QuEChERS

资金

  1. UGC
  2. DST, New Delhi [GAP-0701]
  3. CSIR-IICT, Hyderabad [GAP-0701]
  4. DSTINSPIRE program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focused on developing and validating an analytical method for the quantitative determination of 11 PAs in packed fruit juices, which proved to be effective and economical for routine monitoring of PAs in food samples.
Phenolic antioxidants (PAs), known as non-nutrient bioactive compounds present in many food commodities with anticipated beneficial effects for human health. The simultaneous quantification of PAs in food matrices has become an issue for food quality control laboratories due to the complexity associated with the food matrices. This study is focused to develop and validate an analytical method for the quantitative determination of 11 PAs in packed fruit juices by QuEChERS method followed by injector port silylation-gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (IPS-GC-MS/MS). The silylation reagent (BSTFA + 1%TMCS) was used for derivatization by IPS-GC-MS/MS analysis. The developed method was found to be linear in the concentration range of 100-1000 ng/L with a coefficient of determination (R-2) ranged between 0.996 and 0.999. The limit of detection and limit of quantification were found to be in the range of 8.14-25.45 ng/L and 27.13-84.85 ng/L, respectively. The percent recoveries of 11 PAs in fruit juice were found to be in the range of 73.2-119.9%. The QuEChERS-IPS-GC-MS/MS method has successfully applied to six different packed fruit juice samples. The validated method was found to be effective and economical for routine monitoring of PAs in food samples.

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