4.6 Article

Pre-concentration of active principles from different varieties of Camellia sinensis extracts by solid sorbents

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2021.113945

关键词

Caffeine; Camellia sinensis; Epicatechin; Epicatechin gallate; Gallic acida

资金

  1. University G. D'Annunzio of Chieti Pescara

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the phytochemical composition of leaves extracts of Camellia sinensis(L.) Kuntze treated with 16 selected solid sorbents. The pre-concentration and selective adsorption of main active principles were studied, revealing different adsorption patterns for each phytochemical depending on the type of leaves extract. The method outlined in this study may be useful for obtaining tea extracts enriched in selective active principles for industrial purposes.
In this article we studied the phytochemical composition of leaves extracts of different varieties of Camellia sinensis(L.) Kuntze after treatment with 16 selected solid sorbents (namely hydrotalcites, magnesiumoxide and hydroxide, zirconium phosphates, and phyllosilicates). The pre-concentration and selective adsorption of the main active principles of this food and medicinal plant [e.g. gallic acid, (-)-epicatechin, (-)-epicatechin gallate, and caffeine] were investigated. The quantities of phytochemicals adsorbed by solids were measured by HPLC analysis, coupled to photodiode array detection and calculated as the difference between the quantities in the parent untreated extracts and those recorded in the filtrates. Caffeine was selectively adsorbed by bentonite to a large extent, while for the remaining phytochemicals different patterns were recorded depending on the type of leaves extract. A comparison with pure chemicals revealed a strong effect of the phytocomplex composition on the adsorption yields. The methodology outlined herein may be useful to obtain tea extracts enriched in selective active principles also for industrial scopes. (C) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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