| Literature DB >> 31781222 |
Ahmad Aqel1, Ahmed Almulla1, Asma'a Al-Rifai2, Saikh M Wabaidur1, Zeid A ALOthman1, Ahmed-Yacine Badjah-Hadj-Ahmed1.
Abstract
Recently, chromatographic techniques have the potential to be greener in order to reduce the environmental impact. In this work, a new simple, sensitive, efficient, and green analytical method based on UHPLC-MS has been developed for a quick determination of methylxanthines including caffeine, theobromine, and theophylline in tea. Under the optimum conditions, a baseline separation has been achieved within 30 seconds, using isocratic elution consisting of 90% water and only 10% acetonitrile at 0.5 mL/min flow rate (3 mL acetonitrile per hour). The mass spectrometer was operated with the SIR mode in ESI+. The developed method was found to be linear in the range of 0.03-5 μg/mL, with correlation coefficients greater than 0.9995 for the three compounds. The respective values of LOD were found to be 0.025, 0.015, and 0.01 μg/mL for caffeine, theobromine, and theophylline, respectively. The proposed assay was applied to 30 commercial tea samples of different brands. Both caffeine and theobromine were found in all tea samples with maximum concentration in sample no. 15, corresponding to 32.6 and 2.72 mg/g of caffeine and theobromine, respectively. On the contrary, theophylline was not detected at all in most samples. When compared with all previous studies that dealt with the same compounds in different matrices, the developed method was found to be the fastest, allowing high-throughput analyses with more than 100 samples/h. The results prove that the method is suitable for routine analysis of methylxanthines and to distinguish the quality of tea samples of various brands.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31781222 PMCID: PMC6875304 DOI: 10.1155/2019/2926580
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Anal Chem ISSN: 1687-8760 Impact factor: 1.885
The average content of theobromine, theophylline, and caffeine (mg/g ± %RSD) (n = 5) in commercial tea samples.
| Sample no. | Concentration (mg/g ± %RSD) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Theobromine | Theophylline | Caffeine | |
| 1 | 0.27 ± 0.25 | 0.14 ± 2.61 | 13.30 ± 1.68 |
| 2 | 1.22 ± 2.66 | ND | 27.58 ± 1.63 |
| 3 | 0.44 ± 0.55 | Traces | 17.06 ± 1.24 |
| 4 | 0.41 ± 2.64 | Traces | 23.15 ± 2.32 |
| 5 | 1.16 ± 2.84 | ND | 27.95 ± 2.79 |
| 6 | 0.55 ± 1.55 | ND | 23.29 ± 2.05 |
| 7 | 0.63 ± 0.47 | ND | 18.37 ± 1.99 |
| 8 | 0.99 ± 4.08 | ND | 25.90 ± 2.58 |
| 9 | 0.63 ± 0.77 | ND | 20.96 ± 2.51 |
| 10 | 1.39 ± 3.39 | ND | 29.16 ± 2.45 |
| 11 | 0.86 ± 2.11 | ND | 23.48 ± 1.17 |
| 12 | 0.85 ± 3.03 | Traces | 26.32 ± 2.32 |
| 13 | 1.16 ± 0.95 | Traces | 25.32 ± 0.83 |
| 14 | 1.76 ± 2.40 | ND | 27.33 ± 1.67 |
| 15 | 2.72 ± 1.69 | ND | 32.61 ± 0.81 |
| 16 | 1.18 ± 2.26 | ND | 26.99 ± 1.54 |
| 17 | 1.73 ± 3.23 | ND | 26.63 ± 3.02 |
| 18 | 1.15 ± 1.87 | ND | 27.58 ± 1.23 |
| 19 | 1.01 ± 3.36 | ND | 25.83 ± 3.14 |
| 20 | 0.57 ± 2.66 | ND | 20.09 ± 2.56 |
| 21 | 0.44 ± 1.13 | Traces | 22.55 ± 1.92 |
| 22 | 0.50 ± 1.31 | Traces | 22.51 ± 3.03 |
| 23 | 0.20 ± 0.48 | ND | 16.11 ± 0.81 |
| 24 | 1.99 ± 2.97 | ND | 29.70 ± 3.02 |
| 25 | 1.10 ± 2.51 | ND | 21.06 ± 2.98 |
| 26 | 0.86 ± 2.45 | ND | 30.30 ± 1.67 |
| 27 | 2.34 ± 2.00 | ND | 32.34 ± 2.78 |
| 28 | 0.49 ± 1.51 | ND | 22.33 ± 2.86 |
| 29 | 2.10 ± 3.30 | ND | 31.84 ± 2.78 |
| 30 | 0.72 ± 1.19 | ND | 23.84 ± 1.85 |
Optimum HPLC and MS conditions for determination of theobromine, theophylline, and caffeine.
| Items | Parameters |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Column | Nucleodur C18 polar Tec. (50 × 2 mm i.d.; 1.8 |
| Mobile phase | Acetonitrile: water (10 : 90, v/v) with 1.0% formic acid |
| Flow rate | 0.5 mL/min |
| Column temperature | 70°C |
| Injection volume | 5.0 |
|
| |
|
| |
| MS mode | ESI+ (SIM mode) |
| Capillary (KV) | 3.5 |
| Extractor (V) | 2 |
| RF lens (V) | 0 |
| Cone voltage (V) | 35 |
| Source temperature (°C) | 120 |
| Desolvation temperature (°C) | 300 |
| Desolvation gas flow (L/h) | 600 |
| Cone gas flow (L/h) | 60 |
Comparison of the proposed method with some of the recently reported HPLC methods for the determination of caffeine.
| Ref. | Analytical column (length mm × i.d. mm, particle size | Elution type | Flow rate (mL/min) | Retention time (min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Inertsil ODS-3v (250 × 4.6, 5) | Isocratic | 1.5 | 5.82 |
| [ | PartiSphere 5 C18 (250 × 4.6, 5) | Gradient | 1.0 | 10.95 |
| [ | Fused core Kinetex C18 (100 × 4.6, 2.6) | Gradient | 2.2 | 1.79 |
| [ | Poroshell 120 EC-C18 (50 × 4.6, 2.7) | Isocratic | 0.5 | 5.0 |
| [ | BDS HypersilGold C18 (250 × 4.6, 5) | Isocratic | 1.4 | 8.2 |
| [ | Merck monolithic Rp-18 e (100 × 4.6) | Isocratic | 1.4 | 2.6 |
| [ | Chromolith SpeedRod (50 × 4.6) | Isocratic | 3.0 | 0.68 |
| [ | Hexyl methacrylate monolith (150 × 0.53) | Isocratic | 0.041 | 1.16 |
| [ | Betasil C18 (150 × 4.6, 3) | Isocratic | 0.5 | 15.41 |
| [ | Kinetex C18 (150 × 4.6, 5) | Gradient | 1.0 | 11.71 |
| [ | UPLC C18 BEH (50 × 2.1, 1.7) | Isocratic | 0.7 | 2.52 |
| [ | Eclipse XDB-C8 (150 × 4.6, 5) | Isocratic | 1.0 | 2.1 |
| [ | Agilent TC-C18 (250 × 4.6, 5) | Gradient | 0.75 | 38.0 |
| [ | BEH HILIC C18 (50 × 2.1, 1.7) | Isocratic | 0.25 | 1.15 |
| [ | Eclipse C18 (250 × 4, 5) | Gradient | 1.0 | 10.0 |
| [ | Scherzo SS-C18 (150 × 4.6, 3) | Gradient | 0.4 | 12.6 |
| [ | Diol-HILIC (150 × 3.0, 5) | Gradient | 0.3 | 4.1 |
| [ | XBridge C18 (150 × 4.6, 3.5) | Isocratic | 1.0 | 7.16 |
| [ | Gemini C18 (150 × 4.6, 5) | Gradient | 1.0 | 18.6 |
| [ | BEH C18 (100 × 2.1, 1.7) | Gradient | 0.25 | 4.24 |
| [ | Kinetex C18 (100 × 2.1, 2.6) | Gradient | 0.2 | 3.6 |
| [ | HypersilGold (50 × 2.1, 1.9) | Gradient | 0.2 | 1.9 |
| [ | Titan C18 (100 × 2.1, 1.9) | Gradient | 0.3 | 6.81 |
| This work | Nucleodur C18 polar Tec. (50 × 2, 1.8) | Isocratic | 0.5 | 0.46 |
Retention time for caffeine (min). Since it was not mentioned in some studies, the retention time of caffeine was carefully estimated from the separation chromatogram.
Figure 1Chemical structures and chromatogram of the 1.0 μg/mL theobromine, theophylline, and caffeine mixed standard solution at the optimized conditions.
Ruggedness study of the proposed method.
| Chromatographic conditions | Retention time of caffeine | Percentage change |
|---|---|---|
| Optimum conditions | 28 ± 0.62 | — |
|
| ||
| Effect of mobile phase flow rate | ||
| 0.55 mL/min | 23 ± 0.49 | 18 |
| 0.45 mL/min | 35 ± 0.40 | 25 |
|
| ||
| Effect of mobile phase composition | ||
| ACN: H2O (15 : 85, v/v) | 24 ± 0.33 | 14 |
| ACN: H2O (5 : 95, v/v) | 33 ± 0.56 | 18 |
|
| ||
| Effect of column temperature | ||
| 75°C | 26 ± 0.51 | 7 |
| 65°C | 31 ± 0.37 | 11 |
Recovery and repeatability of the proposed analytical method at three different spiking levels.
| Concentration ( | Mean recovery (%) ± %RSD ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Theobromine | Theophylline | Caffeine | |
| 0.1 | 86.9 ± 3.6 | 83.4 ± 2.2 | 82.4 ± 3.7 |
| 1.0 | 95.7 ± 1.6 | 96.6 ± 1.0 | 93.7 ± 1.1 |
| 3.0 | 95.7 ± 1.6 | 94.1 ± 1.6 | 96.2 ± 2.3 |
Figure 2Representative UHPLC-MS chromatograms for some of the studied tea samples: (1) theobromine, (2) theophylline, and (3) caffeine.