Loading…

Pectin characterisation using size exclusion chromatography: A comparison of ELS and RI detection

•An optimisation of ELSD was done maximizing the detector response by RSM.•The air flow rate had the highest impact in the response ELSD.•Pectin characterisation with HPSEC-ELSD exhibited better results than HPSEC-RID. A high-performance size-exclusion chromatography (HPSEC) method coupled to Evapor...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Food chemistry 2018-06, Vol.252, p.271-276
Main Authors: Muñoz-Almagro, Nerea, Rico-Rodriguez, Fabián, Villamiel, Mar, Montilla, Antonia
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:•An optimisation of ELSD was done maximizing the detector response by RSM.•The air flow rate had the highest impact in the response ELSD.•Pectin characterisation with HPSEC-ELSD exhibited better results than HPSEC-RID. A high-performance size-exclusion chromatography (HPSEC) method coupled to Evaporative Light Scattering (ELS) and Refractive Index (RI) detectors were evaluated and compared for the molecular mass (Mw) estimation of pectin in a wide range (0.342–805 kDa). Instrumental parameters of the ELSD were optimised by Response Surface Methodology (RSM) being 73 °C the evaporator temperature and 0.9 mL/min the air flow rate. The linear range for the ELSD concentration response was wider (10–2250 mg/L) and better (R2 = 0.985) than RID (10–1500 mg/L; R2 = 0.875). The limits of detection (LOD) and quantitation (LOQ) for all pullulans hardly changed in ELSD (LOD: 1.22–1.99 mg/L; LOQ: 4.07–6.63 mg/L); however, RID showed huge variations (LOD: 0.49–10.41 mg/L; LOQ: 1.64–34.70 mg/L), which increased with the Mw. In general, responses of both detectors were similar for the Mw estimation, although pectin characterisation with HPSEC-ELSD exhibited better results in the lowest Mw compounds.
ISSN:0308-8146
1873-7072
DOI:10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.01.087