4.7 Article

Determination of ascorbic acid and carotenoids in food commodities by liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry detection

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 53, 期 19, 页码 7371-7376

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf050973o

关键词

ascorbic acid; carotenoids; liquid chromatography; mass spectrometry; vegetables; fruits

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two methods, one to determine ascorbic acid and one to determine lycopene and beta-carotene, in vegetables and fruits by liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (LC-MS) have been established. The chromatographic separation of the studied compounds and their MS parameters were optimized to improve selectivity and sensitivity. In both methods, separation was carried out with two coupled columns, first a C-18 and then a dC(18), using as mobile phase 70% methanol (0.005% acetic acid) and 30% acetic acid 0.05% for ascorbic acid determination and a mixture of methanol, tetrahydrofuran, and acetonitrile (60:30:10 v/v/v) for carotenoid analysis in isocratic mode. The molecular ion was selected for the quantification in selective ion monitoring (SIM) mode. Ascorbic acid was detected with electrospray ionization probe (ESI) in negative mode, while chemical ionization atmospheric pressure (APCI) in positive mode was used for the target carotenoids. The methodology for ascorbic acid analysis is based on an extraction with polytron using methanol and a mixture of methaphosphoric acid and acetic acid. Extraction of the carotenoids was carried out with tetrahydrofuran/methanol (1:1) (v/v). The proposed methods were applied, after their corresponding validations, to the analysis of four varieties of tomatoes, tomato in tin enriched and dried tomato, and to the analysis of mango and kiwi fruits, to compare the content in these compounds. Moreover, the influence of the process of freezing and the effect that the manipulation/preservation has in the content of ascorbic acid in tomato have also been studied.

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