| Literature DB >> 25532839 |
Marta Ferreiro-González1, Ceferino Carrera2, Ana Ruiz-Rodríguez3, Gerardo F Barbero3, Jesús Ayuso4, Miguel Palma5, Carmelo G Barroso3.
Abstract
A method for the concentration and cleaning of red grape extracts prior to the determination of anthocyanins by UPLC-DAD has been developed. This method is of special interest in the determination of phenolic maturity as it allows the analysis of the anthocyanins present in grapes. Several different SPE cartridges were assessed, including both C-18- and vinylbenzene-based cartridges. C-18-based cartridges presented a very low retention for the glucosylated anthocyanidins while vinylbenzene-based cartridges showed excellent retention for these compounds. The optimized method involves the initial conditioning of the cartridge using 10 mL of methanol and 10 mL of water, followed by loading of up to 100 mL of red grape extract. Ten mL of water was used in the washing step and anthocyanins were subsequently eluted using 1.5 mL of acidified methanol at pH 2. This method simplifies the determination of individual anthocyanins as, on the one hand, it cleans the sample of interference and, on the other hand, it increases the concentration to up to 25:1.5. The developed method has been validated with a range of different grapes and it has also been tested as a means of determining the different anthocyanins in grapes with different levels of maturity.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25532839 PMCID: PMC6270945 DOI: 10.3390/molecules191221398
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Chemical structures of anthocyanins.
Relative anthocyanin concentrations (% ± RSD) for sample and wash residues and recoveries obtained with the assayed SPE cartridges (n = 2).
| Solid Phase | Steps | Relative Anthocyanins Concentration (% ± RSD) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D3G | Pt3G | Pd3G | M3G | PtAG | MAG | MCafG | PtCG | M3tCG | ||
| DSC-18 | Sample residue | 23.6 ± 10.9 | 19.1 ± 7.8 | - | 10.3 ± 4.1 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Wash residue | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Recovery | 7.3 ± 0.2 | 6.5 ± 0.1 | 39.9 ± 22.0 | 16.2 ± 3.0 | 49.0 ± 6.3 | 19.2 ± 1.4 | 71.0 ± 4.0 | 59.1 ± 11.6 | 31.5 ± 1.2 | |
| VC-18 | Sample residue | 34.7 ± 8.8 | 43.6 ± 1.2 | - | 23.48 ± 0.1 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Wash residue | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Recovery | 3.6 ± 5.1 | 3.7 ± 5.2 | - | 10.7 ± 0.5 | 70.7 ± 28.1 | 46.1 ± 0.8 | 85.9 ± 7.1 | 69.9 ± 13.5 | 33.1 ± 1.8 | |
| VEN | Sample residue | 29.6 ± 2.7 | 30.6 ± 11.5 | - | 22.2 ± 0.7 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Wash residue | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Recovery | - | - | - | 15.2 ± 1.1 | 54.8 ± 9.9 | 38.0 ± 0.4 | 67.9 ± 0.4 | 58.1 ± 3.4 | 34.4 ± 1.2 | |
| Strata X | Sample residue | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Wash residue | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Recovery | 44. 7 ± 7.4 | 55.9 ± 1.8 | 88.7 ± 0.2 | 44.0 ± 1.1 | 24.5 ± 3.5 | 27.6 ± 0.2 | 47.7 ± 2.1 | 55.1 ± 5.0 | 23.6 ± 3.3 | |
| EN | Sample residue | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Wash residue | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Recovery | 19.2 ± 0.3 | 23.3 ± 1.6 | - | 33.2 ± 0.6 | 47.7 ± 0.8 | 35.6 ± 0.4 | 62.44 ± 1.8 | 52.5 ± 1.7 | 18.6 ± 0.0 | |
Effect of sample loading flow on the recovery of anthocyanins (n = 3).
| Sample Loading Flow (mL·min−1) | Relative Anthocyanins Concentration (% ± RSD) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M3G | PtAG | MAG | PtCG | M3tCG | |
| 15 | 102.6 ± 11.3 | 114.6 ± 14.5 | 118.9 ± 3.8 | 104.3 ± 5.1 | 116.4 ± 3.1 |
| 20 | 109.3 ± 8.7 | 113.2 ± 0.5 | 108.9 ± 4.9 | 108.6 ± 4.4 | 95.2 ± 5.6 |
| 25 | 96.3 ± 12.4 | 97.8 ± 3.4 | 98.7 ± 1.8 | 97.0 ± 1.6 | 85.6 ± 2.8 |
Effect of eluting solvent volume and pH on the recovery of anthocyanins (n = 3).
| Elution Solvent | Relative Anthocyanins Concentration (% ± RSD) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elution Volume | M3G | PtAG | MAG | PtCG | M3tCG | |
| MeOH pH = 2 | 1 mL | 111.3 ± 6.5 | 96.1 ± 2.5 | 70.4 ± 25.8 | 37.1 ± 64.1 | 31.6 ± 70.3 |
| 1.5 mL | 106.8 ± 10.8 | 97.0 ± 1.8 | 103.0 ± 0.8 | 118.2 ± 10.8 | 105.6 ± 7.4 | |
| MeOH pH = 1.5 | 1mL | 90.8 ± 9.0 | 83.9 ± 7.0 | 48.4 ± 22.0 | 24.7 ± 27.5 | 21.3 ± 18.4 |
| 1.5 mL | 92.8 ± 1.8 | 102.2 ± 3.1 | 104.8 ± 6.1 | 77.1 ± 4.2 | 87.8 ± 6.3 | |
| MeOH pH = 1 | 1 mL | 100.7 ± 3.8 | 100.2 ± 38.0 | 52.3 ± 77.2 | 21.0 ± 30.9 | 19.9 ± 10.8 |
| 1.5 mL | 81.7 ± 29.1 | 97.6 ± 19.8 | 89.5 ± 44.5 | 82.4 ± 20.3 | 72.2 ± 48.1 | |
Figure 2Chromatograms obtained before (a) and after (b) applying the optimized SPE method. 1: D3g, 2: Pt3G, 3: Pd3G, 4: M3G, 5: MAG, 6: MCafG, 7: PtCG and 8: M3tCG.
Figure 3Anthocyanin levels obtained for the different grape varieties (TR: Tintilla de Rota, Sy: Syrah, CS: Cabernet Sauvignon, PV: Petit Verdot). **: There are two non detected compounds; ***: There are three non detected compounds.
Figure 4Evolution of the anthocyanin levels during phenolic maturation using the same grape variety (Tempranillo) but from different cultivar practices: CT: cluster thinning, CC: cover crops, in three different vineyard locations.
Characteristics of evaluated solid phase extraction (SPE) cartridges.
| Commercial Brand | Abbreviation | Solid Phase | Amount of Solid Phase (mg) | Supplier |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery DSC-18 | DSC-18 | Octadecyl silica | 500 | Supelco |
| Bond Elut C-18 | VC-18 | Octadecyl silica | 500 | Varian |
| Bond Elut ENV | VEN | Styrene-divinylbenzene | 200 | Varian |
| Strata X | Strata X | Modified divinylbenzene | 200 | Phenomenex |
| LiChrolut EN | EN | Ethyl-vinyl-benzene styrene-divinylbenzene | 200 | Merck |