4.7 Article

Multivariate optimisation of the experimental conditions for determination of three methylxanthines by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography

期刊

TALANTA
卷 67, 期 5, 页码 1007-1013

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2005.04.066

关键词

methylxanthines; multivariate optimisation; isocratic elution; RP-HPLC/UV

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Caffeine (1,3,7-trimethylxanthine), theobromine (3,7-dimethylxantliine) and theophylline (1,3-dimethylxanthine) are the most important naturally occurring methylxanthines. Caffeine is a constituent of coffee and other beverage and included in many medicines. Theobromine and theophylline are formed as metabolites of caffeine in humans, and are also present in tea, cocoa and chocolate products. In order to improve the chromatographic resolution (R-s with a good analysis time, experimental designs were applied for multivariate optimisation of the experimental conditions of an isocratic reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatographic (RP-HPLC) method used for the simultaneous determination of caffeine, theobromine and theophylline. The optimisation process was carried out in two steps using full three-level factorial designs. The factors optimised were: flow rate and mobile phase composition. Optimal conditions for the separation of the three methylxanthines were obtained using a mixture of water/ethanol/acetic acid (75:24: 1 %, v/v/v) as mobile phase and a flow rate of 1.0 mL min(-1). The RP-HPLC/UV method was validated in terms of limit of detection (LOD), limit of quantitation (LOQ), linearity, recovery and the precision, calculated as relative standard deviation (R.S.D.). In these conditions, the LOD was 0.10 mu g L-1 for caffeine, 0.07 mu g L-1 for theobromine and 0.06 mu g L-1 for theophylline. The proposed method is fast, requires no extraction step or derivatization and was suitable for quantification of these methylxanthines in coffee, tea and human urine samples. (c) 2005 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

4.7
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