Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of GC–MS and LC–MS methods for the analysis of antioxidant phenolic acids in herbs

  • Paper in Forefront
  • Published:
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two methods were developed for the quantitative analysis of phenolic acids in herb extracts. The methods were based on liquid chromatography–time-of-flight mass spectrometry (LC–TOFMS) and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS). The methods were compared in terms of their linearity, repeatability, selectivity, sensitivity and the speed of the analysis. The sensitivity was good for both methods, with limits of detection of <80 ng/ml for most of the compounds. The relative standard deviations (RSD) of the peak areas were on average 7.2% for the LC–TOFMS method and 1.4% for the GC–MS method. Both methods were found to be suitable for the determination of the target analytes, although GC–MS was better suited to the quantitative determination of compounds present at low concentrations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bozin B, Mimica-Dukic N, Simin N, Anackov G (2006) J Agric Food Chem 54:1822–1828

    Google Scholar 

  2. Tepe B, Daferera D, Sokmen A, Sokmen M, Polissiou M (2005) Food Chem 90:333–340

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sacchetti G, Maietti S, Muzzoli M, Scaglianti M, Manfredini S, Radice M, Bruni R (2005) Food Chem 91:621–632

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ho C-H, Wang M, Wei G-J, Huang T-C, Huang M-T (2000) Biofactors 13:161–166

    Google Scholar 

  5. Koşar M, Dorman HJD, Can Başer KH, Hiltunen R (2004) J Agric Food Chem 52:5004–5010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Shan B, Cai YZ, Sun M, Corke H (2005) J Agric Food Chem 53:7749–7759

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Zheng W, Wang SY (2001) J Agric Food Chem 49:5165–5170

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Areias FM, Valentão P, Andrade PB, Ferreres F, Seabra RM (2001) Food Chem 73:307–311

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ibañez E, Cifuentes A, Crego AL, Senõráns FJ, Cavero S, Reglero G (2000) J Agric Food Chem 48:4060–4065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Proestos C, Boziaris IS, Nychas G-JE, Komaitis M (2006) Food Chem 95:664–671

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Zgórka G, Głowniak K (2001) J Pharm Biomed Anal 26:79–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Daferera DJ, Ziogas BN, Polissiou MG (2000) J Agric Food Chem 48:2576–2581

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Venskutonis PR (1997) Food Chem 59:219–227

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Minuti L, Pellegrino RM, Tesei I (2006) J Chromatogr A 1114:263–268

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Proestos C, Sereli D, Komaitis M (2006) Food Chem 95:44–52

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ollanketo M, Peltoketo A, Hartonen K, Hiltunen R, Riekkola M-L (2002) Eur Food Res Technol 215:158–163

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ibañez E, Kubátová A, Señoráns FJ, Cavero S, Reglero G, Hawthorne SB (2003) J Agric Food Chem 51:375–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cavero S, Jaime L, Martín-Álvarez PJ, Señoráns FJ, Reglero G, Ibañez E (2005) Eur Food Res Technol 221:478–486

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bicchi C, Binello A, Rubiolo P (2000) Phytochem Anal 11:236–242

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ibañez E, Oca A, de Murga G, López-Sebastián S, Tabera J, Reglero G (1999) J Agric Food Chem 47:1400–1404

    Google Scholar 

  21. Khajeh M, Yamini Y, Sefidkon F, Bahramifar N (2004) Food Chem 86:587–591

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Albu S, Joyce E, Paniwnyk L, Lorimer JP, Mason TJ (2004) Ultrason Sonochem 11:261–265

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Pizzale L, Bortolomeazzi R, Vichy S, Überegger E, Conte LS (2002) J Sci Food Agric 82:1645–1651

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Dorman HJD, Peltoketo A, Hiltunen R, Tikkanen MJ (2003) Food Chem 83:255–262

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kivilompolo M, Hyötyläinen T (2007) J Chromatogr A 1145:155–164

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Matti Jussila for technical assistant. Funding from the Academy of Finland (Project No. 110429) is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Analytical Chemistry,Department of Chemistry, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 55, 00014, Helsinki, Finland

    Maarit Kivilompolo & Tuulia Hyötyläinen

  2. Faculty of Chemistry, Brno University of Technology, Purkyňova 118, 61200, Brno, Czech Republic

    Vít Obůrka

Authors
  1. Maarit Kivilompolo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vít Obůrka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tuulia Hyötyläinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tuulia Hyötyläinen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kivilompolo, M., Obůrka, V. & Hyötyläinen, T. Comparison of GC–MS and LC–MS methods for the analysis of antioxidant phenolic acids in herbs. Anal Bioanal Chem 388, 881–887 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-007-1298-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-007-1298-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation