| Literature DB >> 30023316 |
Carlos Agius1,2, Sabine von Tucher2, Brigitte Poppenberger1, Wilfried Rozhon1.
Abstract
Sugar and organic acid contents are major factors for tomato fruit flavour and are important breeding traits. Here we provide an improved protocol for accurate quantification of the main sugars, glucose and fructose, and the organic acids, citric acid and malic acid, present in tomato. The tomato extract is spiked with lactose and tricarballylic acid as internal standards and loaded onto a NH2 solid phase extraction (SPE) column. The sugars appear in the flow-through and are subsequently analysed by HPLC using a Nucleodur NH2 column and a refractive index detector. The organic acids bind to the SPE column and are eluted with 400 mM phosphoric acid. For analysis, the organic acids are separated by HPLC using a Nucleodur C18ec column and detected by UV absorption at 210 nm. The method shows excellent inter-day and intra-day reproducibility for glucose, fructose and citric acid with standard deviations of 1-5%. Quantification of citric acid by HPLC and GC-MS showed perfect agreement with a deviation of less than 3%. •Simple method for quantification of glucose, fructose, citric acid and malic acid in tomato.•Efficient removal of interfering compounds by solid phase extraction.•High intra and inter-day reproducibility.Entities:
Keywords: Citric acid; Fructose; GC–MS; Glucose; HPLC; Malic acid; Quantification of sugars and organic acids by HPLC and GC–MS; Solid phase extraction
Year: 2018 PMID: 30023316 PMCID: PMC6046607 DOI: 10.1016/j.mex.2018.05.014
Source DB: PubMed Journal: MethodsX ISSN: 2215-0161
Standards for quantification of sugars.
| No. | Sugar standard mix | Lactose | H2O | ACN 100% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| St 1 | 0 | 100 | 1400 | 1000 |
| St 2 | 40 | 100 | 1360 | 1000 |
| St 3 | 80 | 100 | 1320 | 1000 |
| St 4 | 120 | 100 | 1280 | 1000 |
| St 5 | 160 | 100 | 1240 | 1000 |
| St 6 | 200 | 100 | 1200 | 1000 |
| St 7 | 300 | 100 | 1100 | 1000 |
| St 8 | 400 | 100 | 1000 | 1000 |
Fig. 1Analysis of sugars by HPLC. (A) Chromatogram of a standard containing the indicated sugars. (B) Chromatogram for ripe Heinz 1706 tomatoes. (C) Chromatogram for green, unripe Heinz 1706 tomatoes. (D) Calibration curves for glucose (red) and fructose (blue).
Standards for quantification of organic acids.
| No. | Organic acid standard mix in μl | Tricarballylic acid in μl | Water | Phosphoric acid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| St 1 | 0 | 100 | 800 | 100 |
| St 2 | 20 | 100 | 780 | 100 |
| St 3 | 50 | 100 | 750 | 100 |
| St 4 | 100 | 100 | 700 | 100 |
| St 5 | 200 | 100 | 600 | 100 |
| St 6 | 400 | 100 | 400 | 100 |
| St 7 | 600 | 100 | 200 | 100 |
| St 8 | 800 | 100 | 0 | 100 |
For quantification of organic acids by GC–MS phosphoric acid must be replaced by TFA.
Gradient used for elution of organic acids.
| Time in min | Eluent A in % | Eluent B in % |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 100 | 0 |
| 16 | 62.5 | 32.5 |
| 17 | 0 | 100 |
| 18 | 100 | 0 |
| 25 | 100 | 0 |
Fig. 2Analysis of organic acids by HPLC. (A) Chromatogram of a standard containing citric acid, malic acid and tartaric acid. The fumaric acid peak visible at 12.7 min originates from an impurity in malic acid. (B) Chromatogram for ripe Heinz 1706 tomatoes. (C) Chromatogram for green, unripe Heinz 1706 tomatoes. (D) Calibration curves for citric acid (red) and malic acid (blue).
Fig. 3Effect of SPE on analysis of sugars by HPLC. (A) Chromatogram of a sample of ripe Heinz 1706 tomato spiked with lactose as internal standard (IS). (B) Same as (A) but green, unripe Heinz 1706 tomato was used. (C) Same as (A) but no internal standard was added. (D) Same as (B) but addition of the internal standard was omitted. (E) The same sample as in (A) was injected without prior purification by SPE. (F) The same sample as in (B) was injected without prior purification by SPE. (G) The same sample as in (C) was injected without prior purification by SPE. (H) The same sample as in (D) was injected without prior purification by SPE.
Fig. 4Effect of SPE on analysis of organic acids by HPLC. (A) Chromatogram of a sample of ripe Heinz 1706 tomato spiked with tricarballylic acid as internal standard (IS). (B) Same as (A) but green, unripe Heinz 1706 tomato was used. (C) Same as (A) but no internal standard was added. (D) Same as (B) but addition of the internal standard was omitted. (E) The same sample as in (A) was injected without prior purification by SPE. (F) The same sample as in (B) was injected without prior purification by SPE. (G) The same sample as in (C) was injected without prior purification by SPE. (H) The same sample as in (D) was injected without prior purification by SPE.
Recovery rate for sugars (flow through).
| Compound | Repeats | Recovery rate | SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fructose | 4 | 99.3 | 0.5 |
| Glucose | 4 | 99.2 | 0.3 |
| Sucrose | 4 | 99.4 | 0.4 |
| Lactose (IS) | 4 | 98.8 | 0.9 |
Recovery rate for organic acids (eluate).
| Compound | Repeats | Elution with 400 mM H3PO4 | Elution with 400 mM TFA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recovery rate | SD | Recovery rate | SD | ||
| Citric acid | 4 | 95.9 | 1.8 | 97.1 | 2.2 |
| Malic acid | 4 | 95.1 | 1.8 | 96.4 | 6.4 |
| Tartaric acid | 4 | 95.3 | 1.7 | 93.4 | 6.0 |
| Tricarballylic acid (IS) | 4 | 95.6 | 2.0 | 94.6 | 5.2 |
Intra- and inter-day repeatability for quantification of sugars in tomato.
| Experiment | Repeats | Glucose | Fructose | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average in g/l | SD | SD | Average in g/l | SD | SD | ||
| Day 1 | 4 | 12.81 | 0.35 | 2.7 | 9.00 | 0.20 | 2.2 |
| Day 2 | 4 | 13.33 | 0.14 | 1.0 | 9.36 | 0.09 | 0.9 |
| Day 3 | 4 | 13.03 | 0.38 | 2.9 | 8.96 | 0.13 | 1.4 |
| Day 4 | 4 | 12.89 | 0.74 | 5.7 | 8.50 | 0.39 | 4.6 |
| Inter-day | 16 | 13.02 | 0.46 | 3.5 | 8.95 | 0.38 | 4.2 |
Intra- and inter-day repeatability for quantification of citric acid in tomato.
| Experiment | HPLC | GC-MS | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repeats | Average in mg/l | SD | SD | Repeats | Average in mg/l | SD | SD | |
| Day 1 | 4 | 1924 | 40 | 2.1 | 4 | 1978 | 20 | 1.0 |
| Day 2 | 4 | 1974 | 21 | 1.1 | 4 | 2097 | 71 | 3.4 |
| Day 3 | 4 | 1901 | 21 | 1.1 | 4 | 1911 | 59 | 3.1 |
| Day 4 | 4 | 1961 | 42 | 2.1 | 4 | 1998 | 59 | 2.9 |
| Inter-day | 16 | 1940 | 42 | 2.2 | 16 | 1996 | 85 | 4.3 |
Intra-day repeatability for quantification of citric acid in tomato.
| Compound | HPLC | GC-MS | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repeats | Average in mg/l | SD | SD | Repeats | Average in mg/l | SD | SD | |
| Citric acid | 4 | 4553 | 145 | 3.2 | 4 | 4526 | 145 | 3.2 |
| Malic acid | 4 | 511 | 15 | 2.9 | 4 | 607 | 15 | 2.4 |
Methods for quantification of sugars in tomato by HPLC.
| Reference | Sample | Column; | Eluent | Detection | Repeatability | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| preparation | column oven temperature | intra-day | inter-day | |||
| This study | NH2 SPE column | Nucleodur NH2 5 μm 250 × 4.6 mm; 30 °C | ACN/H2O = | RI | F: 2 | F: 4 |
| Gancedo and Luh [ | SEP PAC C18 SPE column | Micro-Bondapak carbohydrate 4 300 × 4 mm; RT | ACN/H2O = | RI | nr | nr |
| Yelle et al. [ | C18 SPE column | P/10 carbohydrate 250 × 4.6 mm; nr | MeOH/H2O/ | RI | nr | nr |
| Vermeir et al. [ | – | Aminex HPX-87C; 80 °C | H2O | RI | F: 9 | nr |
| Saito et al. Saito et al. [ | – | TSK-GEL Amide-80 250 × 4.6 mm; 80 °C | ACN/H2O = 75/25 | RI | nr | nr |
| Zushi and Matsuzone [ | – | Shim-pack SCR-101C 300 × 7.9 mm; 80 °C | H2O | RI | nr | nr |
RT, room temperature; nr: not reported.
The repeatability is reported as relative SD in %. F, repeatability for fructose; G: repeatability for glucose; nr, not reported.
The reported levels are unusually small: 2.00–2.43 g/l for glucose and 1.81–2.46 g/l for glucose.
Methods for quantification of organic acids in tomato by HPLC.
| Reference | Sample | Column; | Eluent | Detection | Repeatability | Results | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| preparation | column oven temperature | intra-day | inter-day | confirmed by another method | |||
| This study | SPE with NH2 columns | Nucleodur C18ec, 5 μm, 250× | Gradient, 10 mM AP pH 2.6, ACN | UV, | C: 2 | C: 2 | Yes |
| Marconi et al. [ | Amberlite IRA-400 | Alltima C18, | H2O/MeOH/TFA = 97.7/2.2/0.1 | UV, | C: 2 | nr | No |
| Gancedo and Luh [ | Dowex 1-X8 and SEP PAC C18 | Aminex HPX-87 ion exclusion; 60 °C | 10 mM H2SO4 | RI | nr | nr | No |
| Vermeir et al. [ | – | Prevail org. acids column 250 × 4.6 mm; nr | H2O adjusted to pH 2.5 with formic acid | UV, | C: 11 | nr | Yes |
| Zushi and Matsuzone [ | – | Shim-pack SCR-102H 300 × 7.9 mm; 40 °C | 5 mM p-toluene-sulfonic acid | CD | nr | nr | No |
nr: not reported.
AP, ammonium phosphate buffer.
RI, refractive index detector; CD, conductivity detector.
The repeatability is reported as relative SD in %. C, repeatability for citric acid; nr, not reported.
GC–MS.
Enzymatic assay. The reported values for citric acid are with 0.36-0.55 g/l unusually small.
Conductivity detection after post-column mixing with 20 mM bis-TRIS and 100 μM EDTA in 5 mM p-toluenesulfonic acid.
| Subject area | Agricultural and Biological Sciences |
| More specific subject area | Metabolite analysis |
| Method name | Quantification of sugars and organic acids by HPLC and GC-MS |
| Name and reference of original method | |
| Resource availability | NA |