4.5 Article

Quantitation of low molecular weight sugars by chemical derivatization-liquid chromatography/multiple reaction monitoring/mass spectrometry

期刊

ELECTROPHORESIS
卷 37, 期 13, 页码 1851-1860

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/elps.201600150

关键词

Chemical derivatization; Low molecular weight sugars; 3-Nitrophenylhydrazine; Ultra-HPLC-multiple reaction monitoring MS; Wine

资金

  1. Genome Canada
  2. Genome BC
  3. Genome Alberta for operations and technology development [205MET, 7203, 215MET, MC3T]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new method for the separation and quantitation of 13 mono- and disaccharides has been developed by chemical derivatization/ultra-HPLC/negative-ion ESI-multiple-reaction monitoring MS. 3-Nitrophenylhydrazine (at 50 degrees C for 60 min) was shown to be able to quantitatively derivatize low-molecular weight (LMW) reducing sugars. The nonreducing sugar, sucrose, was not derivatized. A pentafluorophenyl-bonded phase column was used for the chromatographic separation of the derivatized sugars. This method exhibits femtomole-level sensitivity, high precision (CVs of <= 4.6%) and high accuracy for the quantitation of LMW sugars in wine. Excellent linearity (R-2 >= 0.9993) and linear ranges of similar to 500-fold for disaccharides and similar to 1000-4000-fold for monosaccharides were achieved. With internal calibration (C-13-labeled internal standards), recoveries were between 93.6% +/- 1.6% (xylose) and 104.8% +/- 5.2% (glucose). With external calibration, recoveries ranged from 82.5% +/- 0.8% (ribulose) to 105.2% +/- 2.1% (xylulose). Quantitation of sugars in two red wines and two white wines was performed using this method; quantitation of the central carbon metabolism-related carboxylic acids and tartaric acid was carried out using a previously established derivatization procedure with 3-nitrophenylhydrazine as well. The results showed that these two classes of compounds-both of which have important organoleptic properties-had different compositions in red and white wines.

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