| Literature DB >> 34912586 |
María Isabel Curti1,2,3, Florencia Cora Jofre1,2, Silvana M Azcarate1,2, José M Camiña1,2, Pablo D Ribotta3,4, Marianela Savio1,2.
Abstract
Sorghum is the fourth most important cereal produced in Argentina and the fifth worldwide. It has good agronomic characteristics and could be developed in arid areas, allowing a wide geographic distribution. Its starch content, higher than 70%, makes it possible to obtain a good yield of flours. Nutritionally, it should be noted that the grain does not have the protein fraction called prolamins, which makes it suitable for consumption by people with celiac disease. The multielemental composition constitutes an important indicator of the nutritional profile of the grains and allows, together with other parameters, to select the most suitable varieties for human consumption. In its determination, the preanalytical stage is decisive to obtain a reliable result. Organic samples are a challenge for sample introduction systems that use plasma-based techniques. As an alternative to conventional pretreatment with a microwave-assisted digestion (MWAD), a greener, quick, and simple treatment is proposed, using ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) in diluted acid media. The UAE method accelerates analysis times, improves performance and productivity, and was applied to sorghum samples cultivated in the province of La Pampa (Argentina). Microwave-induced plasma optical emission spectrometry (MIP OES) was employed for the determination of Cu, K, Mg, Mn, P, and Zn. The detection limits found ranged from 0.6 (Cu) to 89 (P) mg kg-1, and the precision expressed by the relative standard deviation (RSD) was ≤7.7% (Zn). For validation, a maize reference material (NCS ZC 73010) was evaluated. The principal component analysis revealed three different groupings related to the sorghum varieties' mineral profile.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34912586 PMCID: PMC8668354 DOI: 10.1155/2021/9201094
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anal Methods Chem ISSN: 2090-8873 Impact factor: 2.193
Instrumental parameters and analytical figures of merits of the proposed UAE method by MIP OES.
| Instrumental parameters | Operational conditions | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plasma power (W) | 1000 | |||||
| Stabilization time (s) | 10 | |||||
| Background correction | Auto | |||||
| Integration time (s) | 3 | |||||
| Nebulizer | OneNeb® | |||||
| Spray chamber | Double pass cyclonic | |||||
| Sample floe rate (rpm) | 15 | |||||
| Replicates | 3 | |||||
|
| ||||||
| Analyte | Cu | K | Mg | Mn | P | Zn |
| Wavelength (nm) | 324.754 | 766.491 | 285.213 | 403.076 | 213.618 | 213.857 |
| Viewing position | 0 | −10 | −10 | 0 | −10 | −10 |
| Nebulizer gas pressure (kPa) | 180 | 220 | 200 | 240 | 220 | 160 |
| LOD (mg kg −1) | 0.6 | 3.1 | 11.5 | 2.0 | 52 | 2.0 |
| LOQ (mg kg −1) | 1.9 | 9.5 | 34.9 | 6.0 | 172 | 6.0 |
| RSD (%) | 5.43 | 4.80 | 0.27 | 7.11 | 7.72 | 1.48 |
|
| 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
Analyte concentration determined after the proposed sample preparation method (UAE) compared to the conventional (MWAD) (n = 3).
| Sample | Cu | K | Mg | Mn |
| Zn | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (mg kg−1) | (mg kg−1) | (mg kg−1) | (mg kg−1) | (mg kg−1) | (mg kg−1) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MWAD | UAE | MWAD | UAE | MWAD | UAE | MWAD | UAE | MWAD | UAE | MWAD | UAE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | 5.5a | ± | 0.7 | 3.8a | ± | 1.1 | 4539a | ± | 120 | 4572a | ± | 51 | 1325a | ± | 125 | 1502a | ± | 90 | 21.2a | ± | 2.6 | 15.1a | ± | 4.0 | 1333a | ± | 80 | 1492a | ± | 90 | 18.8a | ± | 0.4 | 18.1a | ± | 0.4 |
| B | 3.3a | ± | 0.2 | 2.7a | ± | 0.8 | 4054a | ± | 118 | 4085a | ± | 150 | 1245a | ± | 94 | 1389a | ± | 151 | 24.0a | ± | 2.7 | 19.4a | ± | 2.1 | 1238a | ± | 11 | 1469b | ± | 56 | 17.9a | ± | 1.1 | 17.9a | ± | 1.7 |
| C | 2.8a | ± | 0.1 | 2.5a | ± | 0.3 | 4201a | ± | 186 | 4232a | ± | 279 | 1246a | ± | 89 | 1364a | ± | 242 | 20.6a | ± | 0.7 | 18.4a | ± | 2.0 | 1389a | ± | 218 | 1289a | ± | 80 | 17.0a | ± | 0.2 | 16.9a | ± | 1.2 |
| D | 3.1a | ± | 0.1 | 3.2a | ± | 0.3 | 4218a | ± | 177 | 4249a | ± | 266 | 1220a | ± | 26 | 1287a | ± | 128 | 20.3a | ± | 0.5 | 22.6a | ± | 2.9 | 1185a | ± | 131 | 1333a | ± | 61 | 15.5a | ± | 0.5 | 16.0a | ± | 1.4 |
| E | 3.2a | ± | 0.1 | 2.9a | ± | 0.4 | 4204a | ± | 246 | 4236a | ± | 369 | 1334a | ± | 77 | 1480a | ± | 83 | 21.0a | ± | 2.2 | 20.6a | ± | 2.5 | 1242a | ± | 253 | 1493a | ± | 92 | 18.9a | ± | 1.6 | 19.5a | ± | 0.7 |
Values are expressed as mean (n = 3). If the letters between treatments (MWAD and UAE), for each analyte and for each sample, are not equal, they mean that there is a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). MWAD: microwave-assisted digestion; UAE: ultrasound-assisted extraction.
Figure 1Comparison of Green Analytical Procedure Index for (a) UAE and (b) MWAD sample preparation.
Analyte concentration certified in reference material and determined concentrations in certified reference material (n = 3).
| Analyte | Certified values (mg kg−1) | Determined values (mg kg−1) | Recovery % | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cu | 0.66 | ± | 0.08 | 0.67 | ± | 0.04 | 101 |
| K | 1290 | ± | 70 | 1249 | ± | 3 | 97 |
| Mg | 180 | ± | 20 | 160 | ± | 6 | 89 |
| Mn | 1.55 | ± | 0.08 | 1.52 | ± | 0.29 | 98 |
| P | 610 | ± | 30 | 668 | ± | 102 | 110 |
| Zn | 2.90 | ± | 0.30 | 2.37 | ± | 0.17 | 82 |
Reference certified material: Maize Flour (NCS ZC 73010 Mealie).
Mean analyte concentrations (n = 3) and standard deviations found in sorghum flours.
| Sample | Analyte | Sorghum commercial types | Hybrid | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cu (mg kg−1) | K (mg kg−1) | Mg (mg kg−1) | Mn (mg kg−1) | P (mg kg−1) | Zn (mg kg−1) | |||||||||||||||
| I | 2.8 | ± | 0.3 | 3641 | ± | 59 | 1255 | ± | 35 | 21.6 | ± | 0.1 | 1394 | ± | 25 | 16.7 | ± | 3.4 | Graniferous sorghum | TOB 41 T |
| II | 3.7 | ± | 0.6 | 4060 | ± | 295 | 1328 | ± | 49 | 20.8 | ± | 0.6 | 1315 | ± | 50 | 19.5 | ± | 3.5 | Graniferous sorghum | TOB EXP 903 |
| III | 3.8 | ± | 1.1 | 4572 | ± | 51 | 1502 | ± | 90 | 15.1 | ± | 4.0 | 1492 | ± | 90 | 18.1 | ± | 0.4 | Graniferous sorghum | ACA 548 |
| IV | 2.6 | ± | 0.1 | 4375 | ± | 338 | 1218 | ± | 63 | 17.7 | ± | 0.4 | 1482 | ± | 65 | 14.5 | ± | 3.3 | Graniferous sorghum | ACA XP GR 209 |
| V | 2.9 | ± | 0.2 | 4329 | ± | 431 | 1319 | ± | 68 | 25.9 | ± | 0.3 | 1276 | ± | 51 | 16.8 | ± | 2.9 | Graniferous sorghum | ACA GR 233 |
| VI | 2.7 | ± | 0.8 | 4085 | ± | 150 | 1389 | ± | 151 | 19.4 | ± | 2.1 | 1469 | ± | 56 | 17.9 | ± | 1.7 | Graniferous sorghum | ARGENSOR 110 T |
| VII | 3.2 | ± | 0.4 | 4528 | ± | 44 | 1329 | ± | 28 | 19.7 | ± | 2.6 | 1459 | ± | 50 | 19.8 | ± | 1.6 | Dual-purpose sorghum | ARGENSOR 151 DP |
| VIII | 3.4 | ± | 0.8 | 4256 | ± | 181 | 1406 | ± | 89 | 22.6 | ± | 2.1 | 1217 | ± | 43 | 22.1 | ± | 0.9 | Graniferous sorghum | GEN 11T |
| IX | 3.1 | ± | 0.3 | 3917 | ± | 929 | 1356 | ± | 84 | 21.6 | ± | 0.9 | 1397 | ± | 29 | 18.4 | ± | 0.2 | Graniferous sorghum | GEN 311 T |
| X | 2.5 | ± | 0.3 | 4232 | ± | 279 | 1364 | ± | 242 | 18.4 | ± | 2.0 | 1289 | ± | 80 | 16.9 | ± | 1.2 | Dual-purpose sorghum | GEN 417 SLT |
| XI | 3.2 | ± | 0.3 | 4249 | ± | 266 | 1287 | ± | 128 | 22.6 | ± | 2.9 | 1333 | ± | 61 | 16.0 | ± | 1.4 | Graniferous sorghum | SUMMER II |
| XII | 2.9 | ± | 0.4 | 4236 | ± | 369 | 1480 | ± | 83 | 20.6 | ± | 2.5 | 1493 | ± | 92 | 19.5 | ± | 0.7 | Graniferous sorghum | SPRING T 60 |
| XIII | 3.3 | ± | 0.2 | 4269 | ± | 40 | 1525 | ± | 93 | 23.6 | ± | 0.0 | 1336 | ± | 10 | 21.8 | ± | 0.1 | Graniferous sorghum | EXP 483 |
| XIV | 3.2 | ± | 0.2 | 3822 | ± | 58 | 1285 | ± | 36 | 24.8 | ± | 1.7 | 1457 | ± | 21 | 18.6 | ± | 2.5 | Graniferous sorghum | TAMAR 2 GR |
| XV | 2.9 | ± | 0.4 | 4401 | ± | 456 | 1370 | ± | 40 | 21.5 | ± | 2.0 | 1473 | ± | 60 | 18.3 | ± | 0.3 | Graniferous sorghum | HS 26 LT |
| XVI | 2.9 | ± | 0.2 | 4806 | ± | 975 | 1411 | ± | 49 | 20.2 | ± | 1.1 | 1490 | ± | 31 | 15.4 | ± | 6.8 | Graniferous sorghum | PS 55 |
| XVII | 3.0 | ± | 0.4 | 4379 | ± | 138 | 1367 | ± | 34 | 21.2 | ± | 1.8 | 1506 | ± | 14 | 18.5 | ± | 0.3 | Forage sorghum | GS1 |
| XVIII | 2.8 | ± | 0.2 | 4382 | ± | 511 | 1410 | ± | 82 | 20.0 | ± | 0.2 | 1449 | ± | 10 | 17.7 | ± | 0.8 | Forage sorghum | GS2 |
| XIX | 3.1 | ± | 0.1 | 4380 | ± | 379 | 1248 | ± | 23 | 23.8 | ± | 1.7 | 1545 | ± | 50 | 18.3 | ± | 0.5 | Forage sorghum | GSD 3 |
| XX | 2.9 | ± | 0.6 | 4749 | ± | 194 | 1465 | ± | 76 | 19.3 | ± | 4.1 | 1482 | ± | 20 | 18.1 | ± | 3.9 | Forage sorghum | GSD 4 |
Figure 2Correlation matrix among variables for the different sorghum genotypes evaluated.
Figure 3(a) Score scatter plots of the first 3 PCs obtained from PCA applied to a dataset corresponding to each mineral content on sorghum samples. The samples are shown according to the hybrids: G sorghum samples (red square), F sorghum samples (green diamond), and DP sorghum samples (light-blue triangle). Explained variance values of PC1, PC2, and PC3 are displayed in the corresponding axis. (b) Loading bar plots of the first 3 PCs obtained from PCA for each variable.