...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of chromatography, A: Including electrophoresis and other separation methods >Comparison between sample disruption methods and solid-liquid extraction (SLE) to extract phenolic compounds from Ficus carica leaves
【24h】

Comparison between sample disruption methods and solid-liquid extraction (SLE) to extract phenolic compounds from Ficus carica leaves

机译:样品破坏方法与固液提取(SLE)从无花果叶中提取酚类化合物的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Sea sand disruption method (SSDM) and matrix solid phase disruption (MSPD) were compared to solid-liquid extraction (SLE) for extraction of phenolic compounds from the Ficus carica leaves. Statistical treatment, ANOVA-single factor, was used to compare the extraction yields obtained by these methods, and for the majority of the extracted compounds, significantly higher yields were obtained by the solid disruption methods. Both solid disruption methods are faster and ecologically friendly, but the sea sand method was more reproducible (RSD < 5% for most compounds), and was also the least expensive method. Recoveries above 85% were obtained for chlorogenic acid, rutin, and psoralen using the sea sand extraction method. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
机译:将海砂破坏方法(SSDM)和基质固相破坏(MSPD)与固液萃取(SLE)进行比较,以从无花果叶中提取酚类化合物。使用统计处理(ANOVA单因素)来比较通过这些方法获得的提取率,对于大多数提取的化合物,通过固体破坏方法可获得明显更高的产率。两种固体破坏方法均较快且生态友好,但海砂方法的重现性更高(大多数化合物的RSD <5%),也是最便宜的方法。使用海砂提取方法获得的绿原酸,芦丁和补骨脂素的回收率高于85%。 (c)2005 Elsevier B.V.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号